9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vor of appellant. - C/85750/2015 - A/86907/17/CB - Dated:- 18-4-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Brijesh Pathak, Advocate for the appellant Shri M K Sarangi, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew The principal ground espoused before us in this appeal filed under regulation no.21 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 against order no.16/CAC/CC (G)/SRP/CBS/(Admn) dated 11 th March 2015 of Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai which has revoked the customs broker license no.11/314 issued originally under regulation no.10 (1) of the then Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the errant customs broker in the larger interests of enforcement of Customs Act, 1962. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Schanker Clearing Forwarding v. Commissioner of Customs (Import General) [2012 (283) ELT 349 (Del)] to demonstrate that the inquiry proceedings were permitted to be carried out and completed even though there had been delays in suspending the license of the customs house agent and it was on record that the submission of the inquiry report was not in accord with the time-frame stipulated in the Regulations. 4. Learned Counsel for appellant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in M/s SK Logistics v. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi [2015-TIOL-2333-CESTAT-DEL] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings as warranted by circumstances. 6. This Tribunal has also taken note of the requirement to comply with the timelines in Maa Krupa Forwarders Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs [Final order no. A/93232/16/CB dated 18 th October 2016]. 7. Respectfully following that decision, we hold that the inordinate delay in completing the inquiry proceedings has vitiated the detriment visited upon the appellant. Accordingly, the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit is held to be violative of the Regulations and we set aside the impugned order. We make it amply clear that we have, in these circumstances, not examined the propriety and proportionality of the penalties imposed by the licencing authority. 8. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
