9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inted by the letter dated 8th December, 2014 that the inquiry could be completed and a report submitted on 23rd January 2015. In the case of S. K. Logistics, this Court held that this was hardly a justification for not adhering to mandatory time limit set out in Regulation 22(5) of the CHALR. Therefore, this Court quashes the Order-in-Original passed in the case of the Petitioner. Any action taken consequent to the impugned order and the Inquiry Report that led to its passing shall also stand quashed. The Petitioner's CHA licence is stated to have expired in the meanwhile and not renewed. The Respondent will process the Petitioner‟s application for renewal of its licence in accordance with law without any unnecessary delay. - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled way back on 18th January 2012. For almost 3 years thereafter, no proceedings took place. The Petitioner made a representation on 19th November, 2014 to the Commissioner of Customs drawing attention to Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 ( CHALR‟) and in particular to Regulation 22(5) which requires the inquiry report be submitted by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner within 90 days from the date of issue of notice. It was pointed out that the Petitioner‟s licence has been suspended prior to the issuance of the SCN, that he had suffered heavy losses and hence was in dire circumstances. 4. In response to the above representation, on 9th December 2014, the impugned letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(o) of CHALR, 2004 and, therefore, were liable for suitable action. 7. The Petitioner informed the Commissioner of Customs, through his counsel by letter dated 23rd February 2015, of his intention to approach this Court against the above action. Thereafter, the present petition was filed in which notice was issued to the Respondent on 25th March, 2015. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner was able to obtain the copy of an Order-in-Original dated 10th April, 2015 from the co-noticee M/s S. K. Logistics. The Petitioner also learnt that M/s S. K. Logistics had filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT‟) which had by order dated 30th September, 2015 set aside the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the Department that in its order in Customs Appeal No. 51775/2015 [M/s Overseas Air Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi], the CESTAT had taken a different view. The Court noted that, in its order in Overseas Air Cargo Services (supra) the CESTAT had not even noticed the legal position arising from the non-compliance of the time limit under Regulation 22(5) CHALR for submitting an Inquiry Report and, therefore, that order was of no assistance to the Department. The Court in para 9 of its order dated 25th April, 2016 held as under: 9. No explanation has been offered by the Department for not adhering to the time limit of ninety days stipulated in Regulation 22 (5) of the CHALR. All that is stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
