9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 (CBLR) for alleged violation of Regulations 10(a) and 10(n) of the CBLR. 3. The dates and events in this matter are admitted and are set out below specifically to examine whether the procedure followed by the respondent leading to the passing of the order-in-original is in line with the timelines set out under the CBLR. The relevant provisions of the CBLR, that is Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) are relevant, and extracted below: '17. Procedure for revoking license or imposing penalty.- (1) The Principal Commissioner or 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 revok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure as set out is that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is to issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of an offence report in the matter. The notices are to state the grounds upon which the license is proposed to be revoked or penalty is to be imposed and should call for a reply from the concerned broker. The offence report in this case is dated 26.11.2018 and thus the period of 90 days would expire on or before 25.02.2019. However, the notice has been issued only on 30.08.2019, which constitutes a violation of the timeline set out in Regulation 17(1), violation one. 5. That apart, Regulation 17(5) requires the Assessing Authority, being the Deputy Commissioner or Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Whether the orders for revocation of licence of the appellant is without jurisdiction in that the show cause notice for the same was issued beyond the mandatory time limit of 90 days as fixed by Regulation 20(1) of the CHALR, 2004? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has acted in excess of its jurisdiction in that it confirmed the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence of the appellant firm in the absence of any evidence whatsoever as to the alleged violation of the provision of the CHALR by the appellant firm?' 9. At paragraphs-32 to 40, the Bench notices and discusses various orders passed by the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT as well as by this Court on the identical issue as arising in the present matter and concludes at paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/DC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations.' Evidently, the purpose is to ensure that suspension is not indefinite and proceedings are completed promptly so as to cause the least prejudice to the parties concerned. In this case this constitutes the fourth violation of the time limits. 11. In the case dealt with by the Division Bench, there was a violation only of one timeline whereas, as noticed by me earlier, in the present case the time lines set out have been violated not once, but on four occasions. Thus, the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
