9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Appeal No.51741 of 2017, Customs Stay Application No.50934 of 2017, Customs/ Misc Application No.50935/2017 - C/A/58414/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B Ravichandaran, Member (Technical) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh Shighra Kumar, Advocates for the Appellants Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: B Ravichandaran The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.17 of Commissioner of Customs (General), Airport New Delhi. With the consent of both the sides, the appeal is taken up for final decision today. The appellant is a Licensed Customs Broker engaged in clearance of export / inputs consignment through Customs. The officers of Customs con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inquiry officer was submitted after almost 6 months of issue of show cause notice. This is clear violation of statutory time limit prescribed under the Regulation. Relying on various cases decided including the decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court, he submitted that proceedings are without jurisdiction and are void. 3. Learned AR strongly contested the grounds of appeal. He submitted that Regulation 20 is to be followed by inquiry officer which provides calling for evidence and complying with the requirement of cross examination, if any, sought by the Customs broker. After the issue of show cause notice, the inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry as stipulated under the said regulation. It can be seen that adequate opportunity was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of issue of notice under sub-Regulation (1). In the present case, the inquiry report was submitted much after 5 months of issue of show cause notice. This fact is not in dispute. We note that the legal sanctity of time limits prescribed in the Regulation has been subject matter of decisions of various Courts and also Tribunal in large number of cases. Reference can be made to the following decisions: 1. Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (General) [2016 (337) ELT 41 (Del)]; 2. HLPL Global Logistics P Ltd. Vs. CC (General) [2016 (338) ELT 365 (Del)]; 3. Impexnet Logistic Vs. CC (General) [2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del)]; 4. Overseas Air Cargo Services Vs. CC (General) [2016 (40 ELT 119 (Del)]; 5. Inn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat similar such matters are regularly coming up before the Tribunal on many occasions. We have noticed that various violations, which apparently appear to be of serious nature, could not be proceeded with by the Revenue for a proper penal consequence because of non-adherence to time schedule fixed by the Regulation. Such non-adherence of time schedule results in adverse decisions by Tribunal and High Courts. Inspite of such judicial orders, in many serious cases of violations the officers discharging functions under CBLR are not taking the legal mandate with required seriousness. It is expected that this aspect should be looked into by the competent authority for ensuring due compliance so that serious violations of Customs Act/ CBLR by Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
