TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case. From the records it is found that the licensing authority namely the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) has been apprised of the matter by the DRI on 13.08/2014. This may be practically considered as the offence report. The show cause notice proposing revocation has been issued on 28.10.2014. The inquiry report which is mandated to be completed within ninety days from the date of the show cause notice has been filed only on 11.03.2015, very much beyond the ninety days time limit prescribed for the same. The order of the lower authority issued without adhering to the time schedule liable to be set aside - revocation of license and forfeiture of security not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the Id. Commissioner, customs failed to observe the time limits prescribed under CHALR. On merit the appellant has denied the allegation of contravention of CHALR. 4. Heard Shri Piyush Kumar, Id. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Poddar, Id. D.R. 5. The Id. Counsel argued that Id. Commissioner has failed to observe the time limits prescribed in CHALR inasmuch as the time limit of 90 days prescribed for submission of the enquiry report after the issue of show cause notice as has not been observed. 6. The Id. D.R. on the other hand, fairly conceded that the time limit has not been complied with. However, he pleaded that the allegations against the appellant were serious. 7. Under the CHALR, 2004 Regulation 20 empo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs shall, in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the inquiry in regard to the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and he may also put any question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs House Agent, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position. (4) The Customs House Agent 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 to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les prescribed under these Regulations during the relevant period are as follows: CHALR, 2004 CBLR, 2013 Purpose Specified Time Period 22(1) 20(1) Issue of Show Cause Notice to the CHA/CB by the commissioner. Within 90 Days from the date of receipt of an offence report. 22(5) 20(5) Preparation of Report of Inquiry by the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner. Within 90 Days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. 22(7) 22(7) Passing of order by the Commissioner. Within 90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit within which action is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation 22 (5). Therefore, considering the fact that the whole proceedings are to be commenced within a time limit and also concluded within a time frame, I am of the view that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 8.5.2010 with a copy marked to the first respondent should be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date. If so calculated, the impugned proceedings have obviously been initiated beyond the period of 90 days. 12. Hon'ble Madras High Court has further emphasized the observance of time limits strictly under CHALR 2004/CBLR 2013 in Saro Internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
