TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08/10/2016. By this application, the applicant seeks implementation of order dated 21/04/2015 wherein the Bench had set aside the order of the revocation of the applicant, who is a Custom broker. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Before we proceed on to record our further observation, few facts needs to be recorded. 4.1 This application came up before the Bench for hearing on 06/09/2016, on which date we were informed by the Departmental Representative that they will seek instructions as to the progress of implementation of our order. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 13/09/2016. On that date also, learned Departmental Representative sought time stating that they would implement the order of the Tribunal or make efforts to get a stay order from the Honble High Court. On his submission, the matter was adjourned to 03/10/2016. On which date, learned Departmental Representative again stated that they would make efforts to get a stay order from the Hon ble High Court. On such oral submission, the matter was adjourned to 17/10/2016. On that date it was informed that they would seek instructions from the department. The matter was kept as pass over t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal proceeded on the footing that there is deliberate non-compliance or defiance of the order passed in the main Appeal. It should not pass a blanket order on a Miscellaneous Application of the aggrieved Customs House Agent and in every case. There cannot be a general rule that the order passed by the Tribunal must be implemented. As the Revenue has right to Appeal to this Court, equally, it has further right to request this Court for grant of stay of the order appealed against. The Tribunal cannot defeat or frustrate the right of the Revenue or the litigation itself. In these circumstances, we would expect the Tribunal not to undertake such an exercise and as a matter of routine. It should decide on case to case basis and the Revenue should get opportunity to seek a stay of implementation of the orders. The Tribunal should not therefore, as a matter of course, pass orders as have been passed on the Miscellaneous Application. We would expect that this much will suffice the purpose of both, the Revenue and the Tribunal. While Revenue is relying on the above observation of Hon ble High Court, it is ignoring following observation of Hon ble High Court made in the same order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence and letters written to the Commission after each of these dates , in pursuant to the promise made to the Tribunal. However, from the list of dates submitted by the appellant it is seen that no action has been taken by Revenue from 29/09/2015 to till date to mention the matter before the Hon ble High Court. At this juncture, learned Counsel Shri SN Kantawala and Shri Anil Balani specifically stated, with utmost responsibility, that matter was not mentioned by the revenue s Counsel on any of the date when they were listed before the Hon ble High Court. It is apparent that while commitments were made in the Tribunal to mention the matter in Hon ble High Court, no instructions were given to Government Counsel to that effect. 4.6 We are unable to understand the inaction of the lower authorities in mentioning the matter for stay in the Hon ble High Court while seeking time from Tribunal on the same ground. It can be seen that the appeal was filed before the Hon ble High Court on 29/09/2015. Despite promises made before the Bench, to mention the matter before Hon ble High Court, no positive action has been initiated. Today a letter is produced by the learned Special Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old that the time limits prescribed under the regulations are not directory but mandatory. There are some decisions otherwise too. In similar circumstances, earlier in the case of Skylark Travel Pvt. Ltd., wherein delay of 4 years had occurred (Order No. M/86739/16/CB dated 22.03.2016), the Bench had sought data to ascertain if delays are regular or exceptional. The said data was not provided for a period of almost four months. The matter was heard on 23.11.2015, the Bench waited for four months for the data, however order pronounced on 22.03.2016. The order had to be passed without the benefit of the said data. In the said order, the following observation was made: - 8. During the arguments, the issue of required delays in following the various time limits set out in the CHALR was also taken up. For appreciation of facts and circumstances, the learned AR agreed to provide data of the case pending/under investigation in the Customs House and if there are any delays. However, the said data has not been submitted till date. There is an obvious resistance to providing the data. This creates a suspicion. It is obvious that some Customs Brokers suffer on account of such dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2.2015 4.2.2015 Inquiry is still pending 4. Vilas Transport Company, 11/470 9.3.2011 24.3.2011 5. Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd., 11/091 9.9.2011 19.9.2011 20.11.2014 20.11.2014 22.3.2016 6. Kamal Clearing Forwarding Pvt. Ltd., 11/691 18.8.2011 9.9.2011 15.12.2011 15.12.2011 15.12.2011 15.5.2013 7. Prashant Freight Forwarders, 11/477 30.6.2011 13.7.2011 9.11.2011 9.11.2011 9.11.2011 Inquiry is still pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revenue is seeking further time of 8 to 12 months just to compile the data of other such files regarding delay in processing. This indicates a very serious state of affairs. The interim order seeking data was issued on 15.7.2016 and the Miscellaneous Application has been filed on 23.9.2016. In a period of 67 days, they have provided data of 15 cases. There appears to be reluctance in providing the data for some reasons. We are sure in a period of 67 days they could have easily compiled data a lot more files the 15. 5.2 From the data it is seen that not even in one case, the time limit being followed. In fact the delays are significant in many cases and in many cases the inquiry has not been completed even more than 5 years have been elapsed. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis Orsvs Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180, has observed as follows: - The argument which bears on the provisions of Article 21 is elaborated by saying that the eviction of pavement and slum dweller will lead, in a vicious circle, to the deprivation of their employment, their livelihood and, therefore, to the right to life. Our attention is drawn in this behalf to an extrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
