TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under law. When there is a lapse on the part of the concerned authority in not making the report within the time stipulated which prevents further proceedings, the Revenue has to blame itself for such lapse, especially when the Courts have held that the period of limitation prescribed under the Regulation, as discussed supra, is mandatory. Therefore, it is for the authorities to be more vigilant in complying with the mandatory requirements under law, while proceeding against an offender without giving room for any lapse even on technicalities. This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 13.04.2018 - petition allowed. - W.P.Nos.26923 and 26934 of 2018 and WMP Nos.31287 and 31302 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2018 - MR. K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan in both W.Ps. For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Ramasamy in both W.Ps. CGSC COMMON ORDER W.P.No.26923 of 2018 is filed challenging the show cause notice dated 13.04.2018 issued by the first respondent. W.P.No.26934 of 2018 is filed challenging the order dated 14.03.2018 suspending the customs broker license of the petitioner until further orders. 2. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing the stipulated time under Regulation 19(2) of the said Rules. The time mentioned is a directory and not a mandatory. An offence report bearing dated 20.11.2017 was received by CB Section, Mumbai-I against the petitioner with regard to certain fraudulent export for M/s.Azure Enterprises, M/s.Nobel Enterprises and M/s.Universal Enterprises. Hence, the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer that the allegation made under Regulations 11(d) and 11(e) is not established, is not acceptable. The Adjudicating Authority disagreed with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer and the disagreement was communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner can submit their representation if any and can very well participate in the adjudication process. 4. Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows: i) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner to revoke the license cannot be allowed to proceed further as the mandatory requirement of preparing and filing report of the inquiry within the period specified under Regulation 20(5) has been violated. In this case, the show cause notice was issued on 13.04.2018 and the petitioner has filed thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.2016. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The challenge made in these two writ petitions is against the show cause notice and the order of suspension of the petitioner's customs broker license. The prime contention of the petitioner against the show cause notice is that the third respondent/Inquiry Officer has failed to file the report within 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. There is no dispute to the fact that the show cause notice was issued on 13.04.2018. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed their reply and participated in the inquiry on 25.04.2018. However, the third respondent prepared the report only on 14.08.2018, which is evident from the perusal of the said report itself, made available in the typed set of papers. Therefore, it is clear that the third respondent has prepared the said report on 14.08.2018, which is undoubtedly beyond the period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote Regulation 20(5) of the said Regulations, which reads as follows: 20.Procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty. ...(5) At t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 (Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e license invoking Regulation 19(1) of the Regulations. In this case, the petitioner has raised the issue on the time limit fixed under Regulation 20(5) and not 19(1). When the facts placed before this Court are very clear that the report itself was prepared and filed beyond 90 days as statutorily required and when the decision of this Court and the Delhi High Court clearly indicate that such time limit fixed is mandatory, this Court is of the view that the report so filed beyond the period of 90 days cannot be considered as a valid report and consequently further proceedings cannot be allowed to go as a follow up action. 11. Regulation 20(5) contemplates that the Commissioner shall furnish the copy of the report to the customs broker and shall require the customs broker to submit their reply within 30 days against the said report. Regulation 20(7) contemplates that the Commissioner shall after considering the report of the inquiry officer and the representation of the broker, pass such orders, as he deems it fit either revoking the suspension order or imposing penalty within 90 days from the date of submission of the report. As this Court has already found that the very filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
