TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT MUMBAI], wherein delay of 4 years had occurred, 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. 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 delays and some get benefit on account of such delays. Some custom broker, who have not committed any serious fraud and who ought not to be punished, get out of work for long periods during which the proceeding are de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a along time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an overall time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of issue of Show Cause notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant commissioner of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notices of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) vide Notification No. 30/2010-Cus (NT) dated 8.4.2010 prescribing various time limits. She gave the following list of dates and events in the instant case:- Sr. No. Event Date of occurrence Prescribed date Regulation 22 Delay 1 Bill of Entry 23.09.2010 2. Show-cause notice 21.04.2011 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1491 days 270 days Therefore total delay = 1221 days It was observed that there was inordinate delay about 3 to 4 years in processing the actions in CBLR, 2013 and CHALR, 2004. It is apparent that time limits prescribed in the law and instructions have not been adhered to. 3. Before proceeding further, the Bench seeks to understand if this is an exceptional case or such delays are happening as a matter of routine in total disregard of Regulation and CBE C instructions. The Bench has seen that in most of such cases, the time limits prescribed in the regulations/ circular have not been adhered to. In the case of Lohia Travels and Cargo - 2016 (331) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. 4. We find that we are regularly getting cases whether the said time limits have not been followed. The arguments of the appellants in such cases usually start on the ground limitation. There are various decisions which hold 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, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
