TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the overall time taken were completion of regular proceeding is a period of 23 months, which is much beyond the allowed total duration of nine months. Therefore, by following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai [2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], which directly dealt with CBLR and sanctity time limit under the regulation, the order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is set aside. Decided in favour of appellant - Customs Appeal Nos. 53162/2015 & 60058 of 2013 - Final Order Nos. 51367 -51368/2016 - Dated:- 21-4-2016 - MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner also imposed penalty of ₹ 50 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition, the Commissioner (Exports) also directed initiation of enquiry and action against the appellant under the relevant CHALR. The proceedings under CHALR, 2009, were initiated by the Commissioner (Imports General), New Delhi by immediate suspension of the appellant s CHA licence vide order dated 11.04.2013. The suspension was also confirmed by her vide order dated 18.06.2013 against which a separate appeal No. 600581 /2013 has been filed. Show cause notice dated 12.07.2013 was issued proposing revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit. The Deputy Commissioner by whom necessary enquiry was initiated iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defence and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Provided that the procedure prescribed in regulation 22 shall not apply in respect of the provisions contained in sub-regulation (2) to regulation 20. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of the written statement from the Customs House Agent, or where no such statement has been received within the time-limit specified in the notice referred to in sub-regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he may wish to make against the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (7) The Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs House Agent, pass such orders as he deems fit within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5). (8) Any Customs House Agent aggrieved by any decision or order passed under regulation 20 or sub-regulation (7) of regulation 22, may prefer an appeal under Section 129A of the Act to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal established under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en issued on 12.07.2013, well beyond the ninety days limit prescribed for the same in regulation 22(1). The inquiry report which is mandated to be completed within ninety days from the date of the show cause notice has been filed only on 27.11.2014, very much beyond the ninety days time limit prescribed for the same. Finally the impugned order has been passed within ninety days from the date of inquiry report. However, the overall time taken were completion of regular proceeding is a period of 23 months, which is much beyond the allowed total duration of nine months. The Hon ble High Court of Madras in A.M. Ahamed Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennal - 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.) has held as under: 20. The time limit pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|