TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, for the revocation of the licence issued to the respondent herein and for other consequences. In view of the fact that the licence issued to the respondent had expired on 24.2.2015, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter in depth, except to state that the impugned notice issued by the appellant, dated 5.3.2015, is beyond the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed under the relevant Regulation, taking note of the fact that the investigation report had been received, by the appellant, on 29.5.2012, as stated in Paragraph-6 of the common counter affidavit filed by the respondent, on 26.10.2015 - it is clear that it would be open to the appellant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15, asking the respondent herein to show cause as to why the licence issued to it should not be revoked and the security deposit made by it should not be forfeited, or a penalty be imposed, under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, for its failure to comply with the provisions of the said Regulations. 5. It had been stated that the impugned show cause notice cannot be sustained, as it had been issued by the appellant in violation of the period of limitation prescribed, under Section 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, which stipulates that the show cause notice should be issued, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report from the investigating agency. It h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Brokers Licence. It is also noted that the impugned show cause notice issued by the appellant, dated 5.3.2015, has been issued, under Section 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, for the revocation of the licence issued to the respondent herein and for other consequences. In view of the fact that the licence issued to the respondent had expired on 24.2.2015, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter in depth, except to state that the impugned notice issued by the appellant, dated 5.3.2015, is beyond the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed under the relevant Regulation, taking note of the fact that the investigation report had been received, by the appellant, on 29.5.2012, as stated in Parag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
