9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a final order was passed. The final order of revocation was passed on 09.02.2015. Insofar as the delay between the date when the revocation order was passed and the writ petitions were presented, the delay has been sought to be explained by the petitioner by taking the stand that the matter was being handled by his Manager who had left his services and therefore, the petitioner was unable to approach the Court with due expedition. This stand is supported by an affidavit which has not been rebutted by the respondent - the stand of the petitioner will have to be accepted, qua, the delay - SCN quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.Nos.44344 and 44345 of 2016, W.M.P.Nos.38213 and 38215 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in was that the goods in issue were flower pot stands, whereas, they were infact, electronic items. Consequently, based on Intelligence, the consignments were intercepted. 3.1. Consequently, an investigation was triggered in the matter. Upon conclusion of investigation, a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Customs Act) was issued for imposition of penalty, both on the importers, as well as the petitioner herein. The said show cause notice was dated 23.06.2011. 3.2. As a result of the aforesaid, on 15.12.2011, the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Regulation 22 of the 2004 Regulations. Concededly, no reply was filed to the show cause notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t/ the Commissioner of Customs proceeded to pass an order thereafter, i.e., order dated 09.02.2015, by which, not only the petitioner's licence was revoked, but also, the security deposit made over by him was forfeited. Aggrieved by the aforementioned show cause notice and the order of revocation, the petitioner, as indicated above, has moved this Court. 5. The sole ground, on which, the petitioner has assailed the orders referred to above, namely, the show cause notice and the revocation order referred to above, is that, on the date when the show cause notice was issued, the same could not have been issued as the time frame provided in Regulation 22 had already expired. In other words, the stand of the petitioner before me is that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, the first respondent/ the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice. 11. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by this Court in several judgments including the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in W.P.No.37796 of 2016, titled: M/s.Sowparnika Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and another. Relevant observations are extracted herein hereafter for the sake of convenience. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. According to me, the judgments cited before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner cover the issue raised in the present Writ Petition. 15. To be noted, in Master Stroke, a learned single Judge of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was given effect by notification dated 20.01.2014. Whereas, under the CBLR, 2013 having found the necessity to prescribe a period, the Central Board, the statutory authority had included the same in the Regulations itself, when they were brought into force. Therefore, when a time limit 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 Mandatory. 17. In so far as, when, the prescribed period should start ticking, another learned single Judge of this Court, in A.M.Ahamed Co. has made the following observations: .....17. Unfortunately, the Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. case, is indicative of the fact, that the learned single Judge was of the view that, since, there is no definition of offence report in the Regulations, the period would commence from the date of knowledge gained by the Commissionerate. 19. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, both in Impexnet Logistics and Overseas Air Cargo Services, have held that the period of 90 days, provided for issuance of SCN for revocation of Customs Brokers Licence is sacrosanct. 20. Having regard to the consistent view of Courts across the Board, I am not inclined to take a contrary view. (emphasis is mine) 12. If the state of the law is as indicated above, the mere fact that the petitioner approached this Court not too early i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
