2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Revokation of CHA license - allegation that the petitioner misdeclared the country of origin and under-valued the goods so as to evade payment of higher Customs Duty - Regulation 22 - period of limitation of 90 days - the main importer has gone before the settlement commission and got favorable order - Held that:- it is not the contention of the respondents that the time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) is only directory and not mandatory. It is not even the contention of the respondents that the time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) need not be strictly adhered to. On the question that the first respondent is duty bound to initiate proceedings within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report, there are no two opinions, at least before me. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is of no assistance to the respondents. - Decided in favor of CHA.

The first respondent has rejected the Second contention on the ground that the Settlement Commission settled the case upon confirmation of additional amount of Customs Duty, interest and nominal fine and penalty based upon the true and the full disclosure. Therefore the first respondent has concluded that the importer was guilty of undervaluation and that consequently, the petitioner cannot escape liability.

But, what the first respondent has failed to take note of, is the fact that the revocation of licence now ordered by the first respondent, throws the petitioner out of business once and for all and deprives them of their very livelihood. Once the importer has escaped with a nominal fine on the ground that a true and full disclosure had been made, it would be unfair to impose the extreme penalty upon the petitioner. - petitioner is entitled to succeed on both grounds. - impugned order set aside - Decided in favor of CHA.