9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs (Respondent) revoking the appellant's Customs House Agent (CHA) license was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that sometime in October, 2011 one proprietor of M/s Nikhaar Associates contacted the Appellant for clearance of their consignments. 22 bills of entry (B/E) were filed on behalf of the said entity by the Petitioner which were cleared by the Customs between 29th October, 2011 and 6th March, 2012. 3. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) undertook a search of the premises of the Appellant on 30th August, 2012. On 31st August, 2012 DRI opened a container in the name of M/s Nikhaar Associates for which no B/E had been filed. The bill of lading filed described the goods as 'induction cookers'. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted on 22nd March, 2014. A W.P.(C) No.2595/2014 was filed by the Appellant before this Court challenging the enquiry report as having been prepared without giving the Appellant a hearing. By order dated 12th May, 2014, this Court quashed the enquiry report and directed the Respondent to give a fresh hearing to the Appellant within four months and within two weeks thereafter pass a fresh order "confirming or revoking the suspension order". 9. It is plain that at this stage, therefore, the issue was concerning the passing an order either confirming or revoking the suspension order. At this stage the question of revocation of the Appellant's license was not being considered. 10. Pursuant to the above order, a personal hearing was fixed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d notice to the appellant and later by an order dated 08.10.2014 decided but confirmed the suspension during the currency of the enquiry under Regulation 22. The CESTAT by the impugned order declined the application for stay of the suspension confirmed under Regulation 20(3), stating as follows: "2. We find that the impugned order has been issued by the commissioner in pursuance of the High Court of Delhi order dated 12.05.2014. Therefore the contention of the appellant that the earlier final order of suspension dated 06.11.2012 under Regulation 20(3) of CHALR,2004 was issued beyond the time limit prescribed there-under (i.e. under CHALR,2004) is of no consequence inasmuch as in para 12 of its order, the High Court especially directed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. 16. When the present appeal was first heard on 2nd September 2016, the following order was passed by this Court: "Admit. The following question of law arises for consideration: "Did the CESTAT fell into error in rejecting the appellant's contention that in the circumstances of the case the revocation was not sustainable in law for exceeding the time limit stipulated for commencement of proceedings?" Issue notice of appeal. Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. List on 08.11.2016 for final hearing." 17. The main plank of the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the CESTAT erred in observing that in view of the order dated 25th February 2015 of this Court, the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders suspending the Appellant's license to continue to operate as such. It is in this context that the direction issued in para-2 of the order dated 25th February 2015 requires to be examined. 20. Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR reads as under:- "22. Procedure for suspending or revoking licence under Regulation 20. (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pletion of the enquiry and passing of the revocation order, the Appellant could have further challenged the said order. That, however, was not done by the Appellant. In these circumstances, the CESTAT was right in holding that the Appellant could not thereafter contend that the time limits under Regulation 22 of the CHALR having been breached. The Appellant accepted the orders of this Court extending those time limits. 23. In the circumstances, no fault can be found in the impugned order of the CESTAT. 24. The learned counsel for the Appellant then sought to urge that this Court should examine the merits of the order of revocation of the Appellant's license and whether it was disproportionate and harsh. The Court finds that the scope of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
