9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of 90 days under Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR, 2018 and without giving reply to the same and time to complete the proceedings were still few months away as appears from concluded paragraph 58 of the aforesaid judgment petitioner had filed the Writ Petition challenging the said show cause notice while in the instant case petitioner has not come up at the stage of show cause notice and that the time was still available to complete the impugned proceeding rather petitioner has come up before this Court at the stage when the final adjudication order has already been passed beyond the statutory period of limitation of 90 days without any explanation for violation of such period of limitation prescribed under the aforesaid Regulation 17 (7). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2022 - Md. Nizamuddin, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mainak Bose, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, Mr. S.M. Akhter, For the Respondent : Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Mr. Abhradip Maity, Ms. Satabdi Sen, ORDER Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of revocation dated 11th July, 2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 revoking the petitioner s Customs Broker License in exercise of powers under Regulation 17 (7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018), allegedly for violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) of CBLR, 2018. Facts in brief relevant to this case are hereunder. The petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner s license was passed on 11th July, 2022 i.e., beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under the aforesaid Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018. Petitioner submits that jurisdiction which has been exercised by the Respondent No. 1 under Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018 wherein the timeline provided under the CBLR, 2018 and in particular, Regulation 17 for revocation of license has been held to be mandatory. Petitioner submits that the impugned order of revocation of petitioner s license having been passed beyond the period of 90 days as mandated under Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018 deserves to be set aside on that ground alone. Petitioner submits that the issue of timeline being mandatory, was raised by the petitioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay must be justified by reasons as to why the timeline was not adhered to. The Division Bench of the Hon ble Delhi High Court differed with the findings of the Bombay High Court for the reasons provided at paragraph 14.2 of its judgment. Petitioner submits that even if the view of the Hon ble Bombay High Court is considered, it is evident that in case of delay and non-compliance of timeline, the authority is required to justify and give reasons as to why the timeline could not be adhered to. Petitioner submits that in the facts of the present case the Adjudicating Authority has misconstrued the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court and has merely come to a conclusion that timelines under the aforesaid Regulation are directory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an exporter certifying realization of export proceeds. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and/or quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposing this Writ Petition justifies the impugned order dated 11th July, 2022 revoking the license of the petitioner and defends the same on the issue of impugned order of revocation of petitioner s license relating to period of limitation under Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 by contending that the limitation prescribed under the said regulation which is 90 days from the date of receipt of inquiry report is directory and not mandatory. He further defends the impugned order on the issue of delay in passing the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of such period of limitation prescribed under the aforesaid Regulation 17 (7). One more important fact liable for consideration in this case is that in this case order of suspension of the license was challenged before the Tribunal which stayed the order of permanent suspension of the petitioner s license which is still existing. Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report under Regulation 17 (5) of the said regulation has specifically found that the allegations of violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) under CBLR, 2018 against the petitioner as not proved . It also appears from record that the order of suspension of petitioner s license though it was stayed by the order of the Tribunal on 23rd August, 2022 but befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
