TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai [2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] have held that 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. Since the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner without adhering to the time schedule prescribed in CBLR, we are of the view that the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2016 of the Original Authority and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant. - Customs Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h immediate effect. There after, upon compliance of the Customs Brokers License Regulation, 2013 (CBLR), the Commissioner of Customs (General) NCH, New Delhi vide order dated 03.06.2016 has revoked the license and also forfeited security deposit made by the appellant. Hence, this present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Customs) failed to observe the time limit prescribed under CBLR, 2013, and accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2016. 4. The ld. Advocate has submitted a date chart showing sequence of events and the time taken between submission of offence report and passing of the order for rejection of the CHA L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total Duration 270 DAY or 9 MONTHS. 5. Referring to the above date chart, the ld. Advocate submits that the time limit of 270 days or 9 months prescribed in the CBLR 2013, has not been adhered to inasmuch as the Department took 340 days to complete the proceedings for revocation of the license. 6. On the other hand, Shri Govind Dixit, the ld. A.R. appeared for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned orders. 7. On perusal of the case records, we find that the offence report was submitted by the Commissioner of Customs ICD, Parparganj on 02.07.2015; that the show cause notice proposing revocation of the license was issued on 30.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod 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. 8. Further, the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Saro International Freight Systems vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2015 - TIOL - 2916 - HC - MAD - CUS., in contest with the time limit prescribed by CBLR, 2013 have held as under:- 28 It is pertinent to mention here that the CBLR, 2013 have replaced the CHA Regulations. The CHA regulations did not have any time limit to complete the proceedings. Therefore, by a Circular 09/2010 dated 8.4.2010, the necessary to include a time limit for initiating action was addressed by the Board after filed inspection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
