9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AGENCIES VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2015 (8) TMI 143 - KERALA HIGH COURT] , it is that the time limits set are not mandatory in nature but only directory in nature. Therefore, the view of the appellant cannot be subscribed that the entire proceeding would get vitiated, since the time limit framework has not been followed by Revenue. However, even if these time limits are taken as directory, still we find that the Department has taken unduly high time to issue the show cause notice and to finalise the Order-in-Original even after the Enquiry Report was received from the Deputy Commissioner, Customs. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there are no reference to the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence was committed under 2 Bills of Entry at Chennai on 09.06.2021, action was initiated by the Customs Authorities in Hyderabad by issuing a show cause notice on 21.07.2022 seeking to know as to why their license shall not be revoked in terms of Regulation 14(c) of Regulation 17 of CBLR pointing out to contravention of various provisions of the Regulations of CBLR, 2018, the Adjudicating Authority has vide Order-in- Original No.HYD-CUS-003-COM-23-24 ordered for revocation of CHA license and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the appellant company. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant takes the preliminary objection on the ground that the Department has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommitted by the importers. Inspite of such clear knowledge on these dates, the show cause notice was issued only on 21.07.2022. As per Regulation 17(1) of CDLR 2018, a show cause notice should have been issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence reported. If the 18.01.2022 is considered as the date of knowledge by the Department, then the show cause notice was issued after more than 6 months and if the second letter dated 31.03.2022 is considered, then the show cause notice was issued after about three and half months from this date. In both these cases, the Mandatory requirement of issuing the show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report is not getting fulfilled. Therefore, he says that on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Customs when the Pandemic of COVID was prevailing. Therefore, the appellant could not detect the unauthorised transaction taken up by Shri Habibulla. The very fact that the present appellant was not made a co-noticee in the show cause notices issued to these 2 importers could clarify that the appellant had not played any role whatsoever in the alleged contraventions or provisions by these importers. Further, as enumerated in the previous paragraphs, principles of natural justice was not followed. The show cause notice was issued much beyond the time limit of 90 days prescribed after the date of filing of Enquiry Report by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant also submits that because of the alleged transactions carried out by their empl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (iv) that the object of the Regulations, the nature of the power and the language employed do not give scope to conclude that the time limit prescribed is mandatory. Hence, we hold that the time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(7) is not mandatory but only directory. [Emphasis supplied] 9. We find that Regulation 20(7) of the CBLR 2013 is paramateria with the Regulation 17(7) of the present Customs Broker License Regulation, 2018 which is applicable in the present case before. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court, we hold that the time limits set are not mandatory in nature but only directory in nature. Therefore, we do not subscribe to the view of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the entire proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst under Clauses 19 and 20 of the Regulations penalty to be levied on the appellant should certainly be proportionate to the gravity of the breach proved to have been committed by him. While examining this issue, the fact that the appellant did not have any role in what was done by Sri. Vipin Kumar and his team and that the lapse found is supervisory lapse assumes importance the absence of any previous misconduct on the part of the appellant has also to be considered. Yet another aspect that is required to be notices is that from 18.10.2012 when Annexure A1 order was issued, the license issued to the appellant remained suspended and by Annexure A8 order dated 31.5.2013 the license has been terminated. In other words, for the misconduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
