9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 11.06.2013, which is clearly very much beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/S. SABIN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., MR. S. LOGANATHAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SHRI FELIX RAJ [ 2019 (4) TMI 1713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] wherein it has been clearly held that where a provision / regulation spells out a specific period of limitation, such period is mandatory and any exclusion therefrom should also be provided specifically and thus, the Hon ble Court set aside the impugned order therein where the Customs Broker Licence was revoked by the Commissioner. The impugned order of revocation as well forfeiture of security deposit is clearly u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation under Regulation 13 ibid. 2.3 It was the specific case of the investigating agency that M/s. Ravi Enterprises, 7-C, Panchratna Apartments, Opposite SMC, Muglisara, Surat, was indulged in the misuse of Advance Authorization Scheme in violation to the provisions of EXIM Policy and the conditions of Notification No. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009, against whom the said investigation was initiated. 2.4 The above investigation appears to have revealed that the said M/s. Ravi Enterprises had obtained Advance Licences on Actual User conditions for the import of Mulberry Raw Silk Yarn of any Grade and the resultant product to be exported was 100% Natural Silk Fabrics / Made-ups / Sarees / Garments containing one or more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , has however confirmed the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice vide impugned order dated 11.06.2013. 5. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this forum. 6. Shri S. Murugappan, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Shri S. Balakumar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner, defended the Commissioner. 7.1 The Ld. Advocate would contend at the outset that the impugned order has been passed ignoring the time-limit stipulated under the statute and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7.2 He would submit that Regulation 22(7) of the CHALR mandates passing of order by the Commissioner within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the documents placed on record, it appears that the personal hearing was provided on 31.08.2012, which means that as on the date of hearing, no order was made by the Commissioner. 12.3 Even if the period of ninety days is to be calculated from 26.04.2012, then the Commissioner should have passed the order revoking the licence at least before the end of August 2012. But however, the impugned order is dated 11.06.2013, which is clearly very much beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. 13.1 We find that the Ld. Advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. Sabin Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII [2019 (367) E.L.T. 200 (Mad.)] wherein it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
