TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing of Order by the Commissioner of Customs, etc. The non-adherence of time limit of nine months from the date of issuance of the offence report to passing of order by the Commissioner, in the present case will vitiate the impugned Order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: C/40021/2013 - Final Order No. 43106/2018 - Dated:- 5-12-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. B. Satish Sundar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar: Brief facts of the matter are that appellants are a licensed Custom House Agent (CHA) issued under the Custom House Agent Lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) That the CHALR, 2004 before its amendment, did not provide for time-limits for finalization of proceedings against the errant CHA. Vide Circular No. 09/2010-Cus. dated 08.04.2010 the CBEC clarified the procedures with respect to issue and operation of Custom House Agent licence. The Circular at paragraph (v) 7.1 and 7.2, prescribes time limits for completion of suspension proceedings against CHA licence under Regulation 22. The Circular and the subsequent amendment to the CHALR, 2004 is binding on the respondent/Department; (ii) That in the present case, the action taken against the CHA licence of the appellant is beyond the time limits prescribed. It is undisputed that the offence report in the present case came to be issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made liable and therefore, the impugned Order of the respondent revoking the appellant s licence cannot be sustained on the face of it which has to be set aside accepting the aforesaid contentions; (iv) That the further fact that the appellant s licence itself has been inoperative on account of firstly the Order of suspension and the subsequent revocation itself would be sufficient punishment and therefore, the prayer of the appellant is to set aside the impugned Order and allow the appellant to operate as a Customs House Agent/Customs Broker. 4.1 On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri. B. Balamurugan appearing for the Department supports the impugned Order. He points out that the investigations have clearly proved that the partner of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er receipt of the offence report, for completion of the proceedings under the CHALR, 2004. In this regard we find that the CBEC had issued a Circular No. 09/2010-Cus. dated 08.04.2010 conveying a series of instructions with regard to various issues under CHALR. In paragraph 7.1 of the same, the Board has prescribed an overall time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of the offence report and has also prescribed time limits at various stages of the issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of enquiry report, passing of Order by the Commissioner of Customs, etc. 8.1 Ld. AR was at pains to submit that the guidelines issued by the Board cannot be treated as forming part of the CHALR. However, we find that in a series of judgements by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/DC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations. 7. This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time-limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Schankar Clearing Forwarding v. C.C. (Import General) - 2012 (283) E.L.T. 349 (Del.), the order dated 25th April, 2016 passed by this Court in Customs Appeal No. 14/2016 (Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S.K. Logistics) and the order dated 29th April, 2016 in W.P. (C) No. 3071/2015 (M/s. Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
