9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER PER BENCH : The appellants are holders of Customs Broker Licence issued by Chennai Customs Commissionerate. 2.1 Pursuant to specific information, the Chennai Zone Unit of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted the export of consignment of one M/s. Laxmi Traders covered under Shipping Bill No. 8096689 dated 18.08.2017 declared as 100% Cotton Tufted Floor mats. On detailed examination, it was found to contain 207 Nos of Red Sander logs totally weighing 5.250 MT valued at ₹ 2,10,00,000/- along with 15 Nos Mats LDPE bags and 7 Nos waste cotton yarn LDPE bags. The said consignment had been handled by the aforesaid appellant as Customs Broker. 2.2 Proceedings were therefore initiated under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 alleging that the appellants had neither collected the KYC of the exporter nor ascertained the correctness of the IEC and identity of the client, as prescribed in Regulations 11(a) and 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013. As per the requirements of the CBLR, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 03.05.2018, the said Inquiry Officer submitted his reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the whole proceedings are to be commenced within a time limit and also concluded within a time frame, I am of the view that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 08.05.2010 with a copy marked to the first Respondent should be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report. Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date. If so calculated, the impugned proceedings have obviously been initiated beyond the period of 90 days. 23. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court In Sambhaji vs. Gangabai (2009 (240) E.L.T.161 (S.C.), it is contended by Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, that a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory. But the said contention is wholly unsustainable, for the simple reason that a period of limitation prescribed by a Rule of procedure, cannot be diluted. The decision of the Supreme Court arose out of the refusal of a Civil Court to accept a Written Statement beyond a period of 90 days stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. Therefore, the decision taken in such a case cannot be relied upon. 24. Similarly, the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 20(5) and not 19(1). When the facts placed before this Court are very clear that the report itself was prepared and filed beyond 90 days as statutorily required and when the decision of this Court and the Delhi High Court clearly indicate that such time limit fixed is mandatory, this Court is of the view that the report so filed beyond the period of 90 days cannot be considered as a valid report and consequently further proceedings cannot be allowed to go as a follow up action. 11. Regulation 20(5) contemplates that the Commissioner shall furnish the copy of the report to the customs broker and shall require the customs broker to submit their reply within 30 days against the said report. Regulation 20(7) contemplates that the Commissioner shall after considering the report of the inquiry officer and the representation of the broker, pass such orders, as he deems it fit either revoking the suspension order or imposing penalty within 90 days from the date of submission of the report. As this Court has already found that the very filing of the report was beyond the period of 90 days as required under Regulation 20(5) and thus taken the view that the Commissioner of Customs is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of the time limits prescribed in the said Board Circular. In the case of Ind Air Carrier Ltd.(supra), the Hon ble Delhi High Court has held as under : 6. The time-limits in the CHALR, 2004 for issuance of the SCN to the CHA licence holder and completion of the inquiry within 90 days of issuance of such SCN are sacrosanct. The aforesaid time-limits were engrafted into Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 by a Notification No. 30/2010-Cus. (N.T.), dated 8th April, 2010. Simultaneously, the CBEC issued Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8th April, 2010 clarifying the procedures governing the suspension and revocation of CHA licence. In Para 7.1 of the said Circular, it was noted as under : 7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an overall time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of Issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with no order as to costs. 8.2 The ratio in the case of Ind Air Carrier Ltd.(supra) judgement was once again reiterated by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Impexnet Logistic (supra). 6.4 We also find that there are umpteen number of decisions which have consistently taken the view that mere discrepancy in obtaining authorization from a client is not sufficient to revoke the licence or that absence of physical verification of the importer is also not a sufficient ground for revocation of licence. For example, the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. P.P. Dutta Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1042 (Tri. Del.) which has also been relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dominic Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai 2013 (296) E.L.T. 494 (Tri. Mum) and M/s. Falcon Air Cargo Travel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., New Delhi 2002 (141) E.L.T. 284 (Tri. Del.) 7. In the circumstances, we find that the order of revocation cannot be sustained not only on merits, but also on the ground of transgression of the mandatory time limit prescribed in the regulation. The impugned Order cannot survive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
