Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1385 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - forgery in the Bill of lading - change of date of the bill - Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20 and 22 of the CBLR, 2013 - time limitation - only case of appellant is that that the impugned show cause notice is not issued by Commissioner of Customs within 90 days of the date of the receipt offence report as it was put in post after the expiry of 90 days irrespective it was signed by the issuing authorities during the period of limitation itself. HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the incidence report was received by the Commissioner of Customs on 27/10/2017. Admittedly, show cause notice bears 17/01/2018 as the date, period of 90 days as required in the above provision expires on 27/01/2018. As per the department the show cause notice of 17/01/2018 was dispatched on 17/01/2018 itself whereas as per Appellant it was put to Speed Post on 01/04/2018 that is after the expiry of the said period of 90 days. Whether the impugned show cause notice stands issued within the period of 90 days or not? - Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Any notice is set to be issued when it is put in proper form and placed in the hands of a person authorised to serve it and with the bonafide intent to have it served - In the present case, there is no dispute that the show cause notice was signed by Commissioner on 17/01/2018 i.e before the expiry of period of 90 days from the date of receipt of inquest report. No doubt, considering the above definition of word “issue” mere signing of notice cannot be equated with issuance of notice. As contemplated in the impugned regulation, the date relevant for issue would be the date on which the notice was handed over for service to the proper officer. The department has placed on record the copy of dispatch register maintained by the office of the Commissioner Customs in their regular course of business. Perusal thereof shows that the show cause notice of 17/01/2018 was dispatched for being put in process of post on 17/01/2018 itself. Once the notice was sent out of the office of issuing authority, it was definitely out of the control of the said authority. Hence, the obligation of said authority for issuing the same stands discharged with the said dispatch. The fact that date of service of the show cause notice upon the Appellant that is 07/02/2018 is absolutely not relevant for the impugned controversy, as the same is confined to issuance of notice. Event of issuance has to precede the event of service of notice. Hence the service of notice cannot be covered under the word “shall issue” - we are not convinced with the arguments put forth on behalf of Appellant about the impugned show cause notice to have been barred by in time. Appeal dismissed.
|