9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Broker License Regulation, 2013. Limitation prescribed under Regulation 20(7) - Held that:- In this case, it is admitted in the impugned order itself that the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted before the respondent on 17.05.2017. However, the impugned order was passed admittedly, on 13.10.2017, which is clearly beyond 90 days, as required under Regulation 20(7) - this Court is of the view that issuing the show cause notice beyond the period of 90 days is in violation of Regulation 20(1) and passing the impugned order after 90 days from the date of receipt of report is in violation of Regulation 20(7). This Court is fully convinced that the impugned order cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction on the very reason that the same was passed beyond the period of limitation - petition allowed. - W.P.No.4824 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2018 - Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan For the Respondent : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar, Standing counsel. ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved against the Order-in-Original dated 13.10.2017 in revoking the Customs Broker License given to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revocation of the license and therefore, the petitioner can be directed to file an appeal against the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the offence report was made ready on 27.09.2016 and communicated to the respondent. However, the show cause notice was issued only on 02.03.2017. At this juncture, Regulation 20(1) of the said regulation is relevant to be quoted as follows: 20. Procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty. (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. .... Thus, it is seen from the above regulation that the Commissioner of Customs shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king the licence of the customs broker or imposing penalty not exceeding the amount mentioned in regulation 22 within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation(5). 10. In this case, it is admitted in the impugned order itself that the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted before the respondent on 17.05.2017. However, the impugned order was passed admittedly, on 13.10.2017, which is clearly beyond 90 days, as required under Regulation 20(7). Whether the period of limitation prescribed under the Regulations is directory or mandatory has already been considered by this Court in its recent decision made in W.P.No.26923 26924 of 2018 dated 22.11.2018 wherein this Court after relying on the Division Bench decision has observed as follows: 8. Perusal of the above Regulation clearly indicates that such report on conclusion of the inquiry shall be prepared and submitted within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of notice under Sub Regulation (1). It is contended by the respondents that the time stipulated under Regulation 20(5) for filing such report is only d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations. 7 . This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Schankar Clearing Forwarding v. C.C. (Import General) 2012 (283) E.L.T. 349 (Del.), the order dated 25th April, 2016 passed by this Court in Customs Appeal No. 14/2016 (Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S.K. Logistics) and the order dated 29th April, 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 3071/2015 (Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of Customs (General) New Customs House). The same position has been reiterated by the Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port/Imports, Chennai (2015) 322 E.L.T. 170 (Mad.) and Commissioner v. Eltece Associates 2016 (334) E.L.T. A50 (Mad.). 8. Recently by an order dated 24th April 2016 in W.P.(C) No.1734/2016 [HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (General) [2016 (338) E.L.T. 365 (Del)] this Court reiterated that the time-limits in Regulation 20 of the CBLR/Regulation 22 of the CHALR are sacrosanct. 9. Admittedly, the SCN under the CHALR/CBLR in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
