9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.1.2014, 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 27.2.2015, 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 34 months, which is much beyond the allowed total duration of nine months. Therefore, by following the various decisions of the Hon'ble High Court directly dealing with CBLR and sanctity time limit under the regulation, the order of the lower authority which was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly suspended on 17.7.2012 which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Import General) vide his order dated 27.8.2012. After necessary investigation, show cause notice under Regulation 22 of the CHALR was issued on 30.1.2014, proposing revocation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit. The Deputy Commissioner to whom the necessary enquiry was entrusted, submitted his enquiry report on 27.2.2015. After obtaining submission of the appellant on the enquiry report, the Commissioner passed the impugned order revoking the CHA licence as well as forfeiture of security deposit on 11.5.2015. 3. The appellant has challenged the order both on time limit as well as on merits. On time limit the appellant s case is that the Commissioner of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment 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 Customs to inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs House Agent. (3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Act. The CHALR, 2004 were replaced with Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013 9CBLR 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 27.2.2015, 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 34 months, which is much beyond the allowed total duration of nine months. 9. 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 prescribed in Regulation 22(1) has to be understood in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime limit for initiating action was addressed by the Board after filed inspection and by an notification dated 8.4.2010, amendments prescribing time period for initiating action and completing proceedings was made. The same was given effect by notification dated 20.1.2014. Whereas , under CBLR, 2013 having found the necessity to prescribe a period, the Central Board, the statutory authority had included the same in Regulations itself, when they were brought not in force. Therefore, when time light is prescribed in Regulations, which empowers action under Regulation 18 by following the procedure in Regulation 20(1), the use of the term shall cannot be termed as directory. Under such circumstances, the rule can only be termed as Mandato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
