9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revocation under regulation 20 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 were initiated. 2. Three charges were framed in the notice issued to them to be inquired into by authority appointed on 21st January 2009 which, however, remained inconclusive till 14th August 2018 upon another officer being appointed for the purpose. The report of 7th June 2019 held the charges to be proved and the proceedings culminated in revocation of licence by Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai in order no. 68/CAC/PCC(G)/RM/CBS (Adj) dated 27th November 2019 which is impugned before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant enumerated the charges framed for alleged breach of regulation 13(d), 13(k) and 19(8) of the erstwhile Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 (corresponding to regulation 10(d), 10(k) and 13(12) of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 that had since replaced it) as requiring the broker to advise clients to comply with the statute and non-compliance brought to the notice of designated authority, to maintain records of documents and correspondence as well as of financial transactions in the manner specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the name of the said firms were actually ordered by Shri Nagpal and even the payment for the same to the supplier, transporter, even duty payment etc were arranged by him and even the delivery of the same was taken by him only at Delhi or at Chennai and hence, these imported goods were actually belonging to him only. But the IEC is not transferable for any import and therefore, these facts should have been immediately brought to the notice to the Department by the CB, but the CB failed to do so, even though they were aware that the IEC was nontransferable, CB M/s Varun Freight Forwarders, CHA No.11/391 should have therefore, advised their clients to comply with the provisions of the CHALR 2004. I agree with the finding of IL wherein he has proved the article of Charge- I leveled against the said CB. Hence, I find that the said CB had violated Regulation 13(d) of CHALR 2004 (now Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018).' in the impugned order. 6. The licencing authority has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jaspreet Singh Marwaha v. Union of India [2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del)] which arose from challenge to suspension of licence with the claim therein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on examination of evidence one arrives at a conclusion, that the, retracted statement is true and voluntary. Therefore, in the instant case the Tribunal will have to determine as to whether the statement of the appellant i.e., Jasjeet Singh Marwaha passes the safeguards adumbrated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.I. Pavunny (supra) and Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. (supra).' 7. It is apparent that a general, and tentative, articulation in re Jaspreet Singh Marwaha has been appropriated as enabling the drawal of conclusions from depositions under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 to the exclusion of any other corroborative, or even peripheral, evidence. Such derivation does not find support either in the facts pertaining to the relied upon decision or the decisions that influenced such observation in re Jaspreet Singh Marwaha. Furthermore, the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was the challenge to statements having been relied upon for ordering suspension of licence with decisions in which statements that were disregarded was held as sufficient to establish complicity of the delinquent agent. 8. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Collector o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime frame and even deviation by a single day would resultantly invalidate the entire action and the licence which is under suspension or which is revoked, is liable to be restored. The procedural formality as required to be complied within the time frame prescribed in the regulation, even if it is deviated for whatsoever reason beyond the control of the revenue or the Customs House Agent would result into consequences of declaring the entire action invalid if the provision is construed as mandatory. On the other hand, if the provision the construed as directory, the Customs House Agent would be deprived of his licence for considerable long time, if the time schedule is not adhered to the Revenue at its sweet choice would prolong the procedure and which is a likely situation, no attempts would be made to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period. This is what has weighed in the mind of the High Courts while dealing with the said regulation and holding the same to be mandatory The catena of judgments on which reliance has been placed to declare the provision as mandatory have referred to the extraordinary delay caused at the instance of the revenue in conducting inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g him accountable for not adhering to the time schedule. These reasons can then be tested to derive a conclusion whether the deviation from the time line prescribed in the Regulation, is "reasonable". This is the only way by which the provisions contained in Regulation 20 can be effectively implemented in the interest of both parties, namely, the Revenue and the Customs House Agent.' Casual disregard of timelines is not to be encouraged as it would only lead to stealthy dilution of timelines that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has considered appropriate to bind authorities subordinate to it with. 11. It is also incorrect on the part of Learned Authorized Representative to contend that pending proceedings was no detriment as far as appellant is concerned. Not only is it demonstrative of breach of public duty but also prolongs sysiphean agony that bordering on sadism. We would be failing in our charge if a salutary message on the consequences of disregard of directory provisions of law, without justification or cause, is not emphasized. 12. We do so by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. (Order pronounced in the open court on 17/11/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
