Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 870 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - substantial delay between the issuance of charge-sheet under the extant Regulations and the culmination in revocation - Suspension of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - Misdeclaration of imported goods - MPEG cards or mounted PCB for set top box - HELD THAT:- The licence of the appellant had been suspended and then revoked with an interlude of operability. It is also on record that the adjudication proceedings did not find it appropriate to penalize the appellant herein. It is noted that there is no evidence on record that the alleged non-compliance, as enumerated, was either at the initiative of the appellant or could have been forestalled by awareness of the alleged misdeclaration. Even the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was able to deduce a conspiracy only in 2008; it is moot if blood, or marital relationship, suffices to infer the cognizance of the appellant about intent to misdeclare the contents of the consignment. There has been substantial delay between the issuance of charge-sheet under the extant Regulations and the culmination in revocation. There is no justification offered for the delay; nor do we find from the records that the appellant, by acts of omission and commission, had contributed to the delay. On the other hand, it appears that the first inquiry authority had failed to take up the task assigned to him till his retirement and licencing authority did permit that state of affairs to continue without monitorial oversight - Casual disregard of timelines is not to be encouraged as it would only lead to stealthy dilution of timelines that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has considered appropriate to bind authorities subordinate to it with. It is also incorrect on the part of Learned Authorized Representative to contend that pending proceedings was no detriment as far as appellant is concerned. Not only is it demonstrative of breach of public duty but also prolongs sysiphean agony that bordering on sadism - Appeal allowed.
|