9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y days of receipt of the offence report by the Customs, the SCN dated 2nd February 2016 issued to it by the Commissioner of Customs (General) is clearly unsustainable in law. The order dated 23rd March 2015 confirming the suspension of the Petitioner's CB licence cannot also be continued on account of the failure to issue the SCN and therefore complete the enquiry within the time limit specified in Regulation 20. Consequently the said order dated 23rd March 2015 is hereby declared to be invalid and set aside on that basis. Suspension of licence - Alleged illegal imports - Held that:- the name of M/s Universal Enterprises in respect of one B/E does not find mention in the table of the said order. Therefore there is an obvious error in the impugned order. It is not clear as to the precise nature of the alleged violation committed by the Petitioner and whether it was qua the transactions involving M/s Universal Enterprises or the transactions involving Chaman Lal & Sons and Shyama Corporation. What appears to have happened is that in drafting the suspension orders qua each of the 10 CHAs/CBs there has been a mix up of facts. This by itself is sufficient to show that there was a tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming suspension of the Petitioner s CB licence which had earlier been suspended by order dated 24th February 2015. 6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013 which reads as under: 20. Procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty: (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner 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 Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. 7. In the present case as far as W.P.(C) Nos. 1734, 2134 and 2135 of 2016 are concerned, the relevant date for the purposes of issuance of show cause notice ( SCN ) to the Petitioner was ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report by the customs authority from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 2013. Further, it was not issued to the Petitioner. By adding the name of the Petitioner to the said SCN dated 19th September 2015 issued under the CA by way of a corrigendum dated 1st February 2016, it cannot be said that an SCN was issued to the Petitioner under the CBLR 2013 on 19th September 2015. 12. It bears reiteration that in terms of Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013, the SCN had to be issued to the Petitioner within ninety days from the date of the receipt of the offence report, i.e., within 90 days from 18th February 2015. Clearly the SCN under Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013 was not issued within ninety days after 18th February 2015. 13. This Court in an order dated 12th May 2016 [ Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General)] emphasised the mandatory nature of the time limits specified under Regulation 22 (1) of the CHALR, 2004 which corresponds to Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013. The Court in paras 6 and 7 of the said order observed as under: 6.The time limits in the CHALR 2004 for issuance of the SCN to the CHA licence holder and completion of the inquiry within 90 days of issuance of such SCN are sacrosanct. The afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral) is clearly unsustainable in law. The order dated 23rd March 2015 confirming the suspension of the Petitioner's CB licence cannot also be continued on account of the failure to issue the SCN and therefore complete the enquiry within the time limit specified in Regulation 20. Consequently the said order dated 23rd March 2015 is hereby declared to be invalid and set aside on that basis. 15. Now turning to W.P.(C) No. 4397 of 2016, the facts of the case are that the offence report dated 28th March 2016 was received by the Customs from the Joint Commissioner, SIIB-export on 31st March 2016. This concerned the alleged illegal imports made by the three parties, i.e., M/s Rajkumar Impex, C.P. Exporters and Raj Kumar Impex (P) Ltd. Imports were made by the said three parties under 50 bills of entry. Upon further investigation it was revealed that more than ten CHAs/CBs including the Petitioner were involved. By an order dated 2nd May 2016, the Petitioner s CB licence was suspended. 16. A perusal of the said order dated 2nd May 2016 reveals that para 2 mentions the names of the above three parties and the fact that the licenses were issued to the said parties under the V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
