9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder regulation no.10 (1) of the then Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984 and forfeited the entire security deposit lying with the licensing authority is the inordinate delay in completion of the process of revocation of the license contrary to the time-frame prescribed in the Regulations. 2. It would appear that proceedings were initiated against the appellant, M/s Bajaj Enterprises, for allegedly facilitating misdeclaration and undervaluation of import of goods by bogus holders of Import Export Code (IEC). The 'offence report' was received by the licensing authority on 5th July 2013 and the license ordered to be revoked on 30th June 2015 entailing an elapse of 664 days against the stipulated 270 days from commencemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dras) v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2016-TIOL-1029-HC-MAD-CUS) which placed emphasis on examination of facts pertaining to each case to determine whether the directory nature of the time-lines was applicable and on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Barco Electronics Systems Ltd [2015 (322) ELT 27 (All)], it was argued that precedential value of an earlier case was negligible and not applicable to the present dispute which was initiated owing to the rampant undervaluation facilitated by the appellant. It was also submitted that, if adherence to time-lines was a pre-requisite, the matter would need to be examined afresh by the licencing authority. The appellant submitted date chart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck to the Commissioner of Customs. 5. The decisions cited by Learned Authorized Representative in support of scrutiny on merit of each appeal have to be considered in the context of the evolution of the Regulations. The licence was issued under Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 1984 which was replaced by the Regulations of 2004. Originally, the Regulations of 2004 did not contain any time-lines for the various milestones set out for disciplinary proceedings but, by amendment of 8th April 2010, such deadlines were inserted. With this insertion, adherence to time-lines acquired a statutory mandate. The decision in re M/s Sri Rajeswari International was rendered in a writ petition that was held to be devoid of merit owing to failure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
