9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port. The time limit set out under regulation 17 (1) of the 2018 Regulations for issuance of the show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report has been violated. It also shows that the time limit set out under regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations requiring the Commissioner to pass an appropriate order within 90 days after receipt of the enquiry report has also been violated. The delay in the issuance of the show cause notice under regulation 17(1) is about nine months and the delay in passing the order under regulation 17(7) is also of about more than four months. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention advanced by the Revenue that the breach of the time limits set out in regulation 17 of 2018 Regulations would not result in setting aside of the order revoking the Customs Broker License of the appellant. The time limit has to be complied with and any breach would result in setting aside the final order. Conclusion - The failure to issue the show cause notice and the final order within the prescribed time limits invalidated the revocation of the Customs Broker License. Appeal allowed. - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MS. HEMAMB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Broker, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position. (4) The Customs Broker shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines permission to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing. (5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording his findings thereon submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1). (6) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall furnish to the Customs Broker a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and shall require the Custom Broker to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report. (7) The Principal Commissioner or Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear from the date of receipt of the offence report. 8. Regulation 17(5) provides that the enquiry report has to be submitted within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of the show cause notice under regulation 17(1). 9. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 26.06.2019 and the enquiry report was submitted on 25.09.2019. There is, therefore, no violation of the provisions of regulation 17(5) of 2018 regulations. 10. Regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations provides that the Commissioner shall, after considering the report of the enquiry and the representation, if any, made by the Customs Broker pass an order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension order or revoking the license of the Customs Broker within 90 days from the date of submission of the enquiry report. 11. In the instant case, the enquiry report was submitted to the Commissioner on 25.09.2019 but the order revoking the Customs Broker License of the appellant was passed on 30.04.2020. This is way beyond the period of 90 days within which the Commissioner was required to pass the order. It is, therefore, clear that the time limit contemplated under regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are timelines set forth for each step that the Customs Broker and Revenue authority take during such proceedings . In terms of Regulation 17(1), a show cause notice is to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. Regulation 17(5) prescribes a time limit of 90 days from the date of issue of show cause notice for submission of an Inquiry Report. Sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 17 once again prescribes that within 90 days from the date of the submission of the Inquiry Report and after consideration thereof, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner shall pass orders either revoking the suspension of licence or revoking the licence of the customs broker. xxx xxx xxx 12 . From a perusal of the record, the following facts are evident. An Offence Report dated 10-5-2018 was received in the office of the Commissioner of Customs on 18-5-2018, on the basis of which the show cause notice dated 10-8-2018 was issued by the respondent. Although, a copy of the Offence Report was not filed, the show cause notice states that the Offence Report dated 10-5-2018 was received in the office of respondent on 18-5-2018; causing an eight days' internal delay which is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d observed as follows: 14. It can be seen that the timelines as prescribed under various Regulations in CBLR, 2018, have been consistently held by the Courts as mandatory in nature. Each timeline is sacrosanct, and the idea of prescribing a time limit by statute becomes redundant if not adhered to . Therefore, it is not just the overall timeline of 270 days (as set forth in the Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010) that needs to be followed, but also each and every timeline as prescribed in the CBLR, 2018. 14.1 Timelines cannot be overlooked by Revenue by citing reasons on merits . We are bound by the decisions, as discussed above, passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and other High Courts, which state that each timeline is sacrosanct. xxx xxx xxx 14.3 In view of the aforegoing discussion and having regard to the consistent view of the Courts across the Board, we are not inclined to take a contrary view. The surviving question of law as framed as set forth in paragraph 3(i) herein is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. 15. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 1-10-2019 passed by the CESTAT. Consequently, the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned time limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Shankar Clearing Forwarding v. C.C. (Import General): 2012 (283) E.LT. 349 (Del.), the order dated 25 April, 2016 passed by this Court in Customs Appeal No. 14/2016 [Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S.K. Logistics) and the order dated 29th April, 2016 in W.P. (C) No. 3071/2015 (Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of Customs (General) New Customs House). The same position has been reiterated by the Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, SeaPort/Imports, Chennai: 2015 (322) E.L. . 170 (Mad.) and Commissioner v. Eltece Associates - -2016 (334) E.L.T. A50 (Mad.). 22. In Impexnext Logistics, the Delhi High Court observed as follows: 6 . It is plain that in the case there has been a violation of the time limits set out in regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (corresponding to regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004). In the decision dated May 12, 2016 (Indair Carrier P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2016) 40 GSTR 81 (Delhi) this court held (page 84): XXX XXX XXX 7. This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )-2016 (336) ELT. 347 (Del.) (v) Overseas Air Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi 2016 (340) ELT 119 (Del.) 38 . Ultimately, the Court held that the show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period was not sustainable. 39 . Following the said Judgment in Mis. Sowpamika Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and another, one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J.) allowed yet another writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 44344 of 2016, in the matter of Mis. Patriot Freight Logistics System v. Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate-VIII Chennai and two others vide Judgment dated 3-2-2017 40 . Also, another Learned Judge of this Court (R. Mahadeven, J.) in 2016 (332) ELT. 300 (Mad.) in the matter of Masterstroke Freight Forwarders P. Ltd v. CC (1). Chennai-1 after having considered a number of Judgments, has ultimately, concluded as follows: 50. It is also to be noted that every act of breach by the Broker would entitle the authorities to initiate proceedings from the date of knowledge of the offence It is only if the time limit is strictly followed, swift action can be initiated against the Customs Brokers and the authorities can also be made accountable. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue in not acting in time, by issuing the show cause notice, within the period as contemplated under Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004. 46 . Therefore, we are of the considered view, and in fact have no hesitation to hold so that, the Revenue has not issued the show cause notice dated 18-11-2011 within the period of limitation prescribed under Regulation 22(1) CHALR, 2004 and thus, the consequent proceedings involving revocations of the appellant's CHA license and forfeiture of its security deposit, is unlawful .. 24. In Harjeet Singh Johar, the Delhi High Court observed as follows: 5 . The Delhi High Court in Overseas Air Cargo Service v. Commissioner of Customs, 2016 (340) E.LT. 119 (Del.), Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Customs (General) - 2016 (337) ELT. 41 (Del.) and Commissioner of Customs v. S.K. Logistics-2016 (337) E.LT. 39 (Del.), has held that the time period of 90 days mentioned in Regulation 20(1) of the 2013 Regulations is mandatory and sacrosanct. A show cause notice issued after 90 days of receipt of the offence report, is invalid. In other words, if the show cause notice was not issued within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
