Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Al. Kabir Impex Services Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

2018 (1) TMI 440 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Penalty on CHA - Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013 - delay in issue of SCN - Held that: - the concerned Commissionerate has been put to knowledge with regard to the offence on 23.12.2016. However, the show cause notice has been issued on 6.4.2017 which is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in Regulation 20 - In the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble High Court of Madras observed that the SCN is not issued wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is aggrieved by the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed alleging violation of Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. 2. A show cause notice dated 6.4.2017 was issued to the appellant proposing to revoke the license and also for forfeiting the security deposit under Regulation 18 r/w Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 for their violation to comply to the provisions of Regulation 11(d), 11(e), 11(f) and 11(g) of CBLR, 2013. After due process of law, the original authority dropped the proposal for revocation of li .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

called back by the SIIB (Export), JMCH, Mumbai. On examination, it was found that there was mis-declaration of quantity and description of goods and the goods were overvalued. It was also found that the shipping bills were filed using the appellant s Customs Broker license by one Shri Abbas M. Mukadam. Immediately, the Principal Commissioner, Mumbai passed a prohibition order against the appellant dated 11.11.2016 prohibiting the appellant s to function as Customs Broker in Mumbai Customs Zone. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the time prescribed in Regulation 20 has not been complied and therefore the show cause notice is ab initio void. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Anr. Vs. A.M. Ahmed & Co. in W.A. No. 371 of 2015 decided on 2.7.2015. That in the said judgment, the Hon ble High Court observed that Regulation 20 provides that the show cause notice for revocation of license has to be issued within 90 days from the date of offence rep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held by various High Courts, time limit prescribed in Regulation 20 for issuing show cause notice has to be complied. 4. Against this, the ld. AR shri R. Subramaniyan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The only argument put forward by the ld. counsel for the appellant is regarding the delay in issuing the show cause notice. In the present case, we do not find any offence report, as such filed by the department after conducting of any investigation. However, a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se, the concerned Commissionerate has been put to knowledge with regard to the offence on 23.12.2016. However, the show cause notice has been issued on 6.4.2017 which is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in Regulation 20. The Hon ble High Court of Madras in the decision relied by the ld. counsel had occasion to analyse a similar issue. The Hon ble High Court observed that the CHALR, 2004 does not spell out what is an offence report and the manner in which it has to be sent and the appropri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me. Added further, the Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 speaks of procedure for suspending or Revoking License under Regulation 20 and in appropriate cases, the Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 empowers the Commissioner of Customs to Suspend the License of an Agent in appropriate case where immediate action is necessary. It cannot be gainsaid that Rule 22(3) specifies a time limit of 15 days. Further, it also determines the time limit enjoined under Regulation 22(5). 34. In the present case befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d period of 90 days sub-Regulation 1 of Regulations 22. 35. However, the significant aspect of the matter is that the Appellants in the Counter Affidavit filed in the writ petition had denied the averments of the Respondent/petitioner on the ground no.6 of paragraph No. 16 to the effect that the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2010 was issued by the Directorate of Revenue and Intelligence and the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Tuticorin were all marked to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ught to commence from that date in the considered opinion of this Court. 7. In the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin in CMA No. 730 of 2016, the Hon ble High Court of Madras observed that the show cause notice is not issued within 90 days and the proceedings initiated under CHALR for revocation of licence is vitiated. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- 15. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that, insofar as the ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version