9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, 2013. The license is valid upto 30.07.2024. (ii)The petitioner's responsibilities include handling of import and export cargo for and on behalf of Importers and Exporters through Customs Stations, as defined under Section 2(13) of the Customs Act. In the course of the business, the petitioner had handled a consignment of import of Porcelain Tiles for and on behalf of M/s.Niti Traders, Mumbai, vide Bill of Entry dated 27.06.2016. However, clearances vide Bills of Entry dated 06.07.2016 and 21.06.2016 have also been attributed to them despite the fact that the petitioner did not handle the clearance of the said consignments. The said import documents pertaining to the said Bills of Entry were handed over to the petitioner for clearance from Customs by Shri Bhavik Shah of M/s.Spanzio Ceramics, who had also given a Letter of Authorization to clear the shipment for and on behalf of M/s.Niti Traders in terms of Regulation 11(a) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. It was on such a basis they had handled the said clearances for and on behalf of M/s.Niti Traders. (iii)The petitioner came to know that M/s.Niti Traders had complained to the Office of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to contain only 2834 cartons of Porcelain Tiles, out of 22048 cartons of Porcelain Tiles imported vide the above referred Bills of Entry. The goods were seized under a Mahazar dated 10.03.2017. Since the cargo was voluminous, a Restraint Order on 10.03.2017 was issued to M/s.Spanzio Ceramics not to move the goods until further orders. (viii)The Investigating Agency had established the relationship between the supplier M/s.Wan Hai Lines (India) Private Limited and M/s.Spanzio Ceramics, in such a way, that on the instructions of the supplier, M/s.Spanzio had arranged for a Customs Broker viz., the petitioner for clearance of the consignments supposed to have been cleared by M/s.Niti Traders, which is clearly evident from the statement made by the Authorized Signatory of the petitioner. (ix)On the same set of allegations, a demand-cum-show cause notice under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, SIIB to M/s.Spanzio Ceramics and the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013, in respect of the Bill of Entry da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be offered and that is met with in this case. In these circumstances, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4.Dr.S.Krishnanandh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when a time limit is prescribed in Regulation, which empowers action under Regulation 18 by following the procedure in Regulation 20 (1), the mandatory requirement of the limitation cannot be ignored. 5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon an unreported judgment dated 13.10.2017 made by the division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.730 of 2016 [Santon Shipping Services, 18-B, Ceeyum Building, Second Floor, South Raja Street, Tuticorin 628 008 Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin 628 004 and another] wherein the Division Bench held as follows: "... 41.In view of the aforesaid judgments, in our opinion, the issue as to whether the limitation prescribed i.e., 90 days period, under Regulation 22(1) of CHALR 2004, is mandatory or not, is no more res integra. 42.Once the limitation prescribed is mandatory, as has been declared by the courts of law, it cannot be stated that, because of the other issues, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the Customs House Agent within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit within 30 days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. 10.The judgment was passed in an Appeal in C.M.A.No.730 of 2016, which arose against the order passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in an Appeal preferred by the Customs Broker as against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. 11.In the case on hand, the Order of Prohibition was passed against the petitioner under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 and on a perusal of Regulation 23, it is clear that 90 days period prescribed under Regulation 22(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004, does not find a place. That apart, Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
