9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full amount of security deposit was ordered to be forfeited under the Customs Broking License Regulation, ,2013. 2. In this connection we heard Shri K.K. Maity, Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri S.N. Mitra, A.C. (A.R) on behalf of Revenue. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenges the impugned order both for violation of the statutory time limits prescribed in the CBLR, 2013 as well as on merits. On the question of violation of time limit, the Ld. Counsel submitted the date chart as follows: S. No. Date 23.03.2016 The date of adjudication order which is treated as offence report. 22.04.2016 Suspension order was passed 16.05.2016 Date of confirmation of suspension order 08.08.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court also in their judgment dated 19th April, 2018. 6. On merit, the ld. D.R argued that the appellant has allowed the license to be misused in Mumbai. In Mumbai, the Authorised Representative of the appellant has sub-contracted the CHA license to unauthorised persons who were found to have indulged in evasion of Customs duty by filing the bills of entry in the name of non existent importers. He further submitted that the offences for which the appellants have been proceeded against are very serious and merits revocation of CB license. 7. We have heard both the sides at length and perused the appeal records. First we consider the objections raised on behalf of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssage therefrom is found to be quoted in the same. The last sentence from the quoted passage is relevant and reads thus: "Whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and the specified consequence should not follow." 48. The Learned Judge also quoted a paragraph from a decision of the Madras High Court itself reported in 2015 (318) ELT 83 (Mad.) (Hyndai Motors India Ltd. Vs. Union of India), wherein the learned Judge observed: "Another simple test to determine whether a time limit stipulated in a rule is directory or manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat will happen if the proceedings are not completed within a period of 3 months. It is well-settled that where a statute provides for consequences for non-compliance, with a time limit, in such cases it has been held that the time fixed is mandatory in character. The relevant provision of Clause21 does not disclose any such intention. This is a feature which inclines the Court to hold the time of 3 months is not mandatory." 51. This Bench thus doubts as to whether the three decisions of the Madras High Court relied on by Mr. Saraf lay down correct law, and holds the time limit in regulation 20(1) as not mandatory, and that any proceeding for revocation of a customs broker's license beyond ninety day of receipt of offence report would no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of entry were found to be mis-declared in terms of description as well as the value. The investigation further revealed that Shri Raviraj Kotian, the authorised signatory, had permitted unauthorised persons by name Shri Samir Poddar and Shri Praveen Jha to sign on behalf of the appellant, in return for mandatory considerations of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 12,500/- per month. The investigation further revealed that Shri Raviraj Kotian has involved himself in repeated cases of smuggling in gold ornaments and was arrested and detained under COFEPOSA. 11. In the present proceedings the Licensing Authority has given elaborate findings to the effect that the appellant has contravened CHA Regulations. By the act of sub-letting of the CHA license in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
