TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner nominated by the said Commissioner of Customs. In a number of decisions and judgements, higher appellate fora have consistently held that the limitation periods prescribed in the CBLR, 2013 are not just directory, but, on the other hand, are mandatory. In the present case, the ninety-day period prescribed for submission of the report by the Inquiry Officer has indeed been exceeded, possibly because of the first appointed Inquiry Officer going on medical leave for forty five days, necessitating the appointment of a second Inquiry Officer. Nonetheless, when the prescribed periods are to be considered as mandatory, the concerned Custom House/Commissioner, in such an eventuality, should have immedia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued proposing revocation of the Customs Broker s licence, forfeiture of the security amount deposited by them and imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. The appellants were directed to appear for personal hearing on 21.03.2017 before the Inquiry Officer appointed to conduct inquiry as per Regulation 20 of the CBLR, which was re-fixed to 20.04.2017 at the request of the appellant. The appellant vide letter dated 17.04.2017 had requested extension on the grounds that their Managing Director had been hospitalized. Since the Inquiry Officer went on medical leave for forty five days, Shri. R. Seshadri, Assistant Commissioner (CIU), was appointed as the ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.11.2016 O-in-O No. 482/2016-17/ADC/NS-V/JNCH issued taking action under Customs Act by Mumbai Customs Copy not marked to Customs Chennai 15.12.2016 Prohibition Order No. 32/2016 issued by Mumbai Customs Copy marked to Chennai Customs 22.02.2017 SCN F. No. R-311/CHA issued by Chennai Customs under CBLR, 2013 Within time limit 20(1) of CBLR, 2013 22.02.2017 Shri. AC Roy Joseph was appointed as Inquiry Officer Went on long leave 03.05.2017 Shri. R. Seshadri, AC, was appointed as Inquiry Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, Ld. AR Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned Order. He submits that while the adjudicating authority has concluded that the appellant has failed to fulfil the obligations laid down under Regulations 11(d) and 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013, however, taking note of the case laws on the issue, the adjudicating authority has not awarded the extreme punishment of revocation of licence or forfeiture of security deposit and only a small penalty of ₹ 30,000/- has been imposed. Ld. AR submits that there is no scope for any further reduction in the said penalty. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 6. The starting point of the proceedings inter alia for impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of these mandatory time-limits. 8. We do note that in the present case, the ninety-day period prescribed for submission of the report by the Inquiry Officer has indeed been exceeded, possibly because of the first appointed Inquiry Officer going on medical leave for forty five days, necessitating the appointment of a second Inquiry Officer. Nonetheless, when the prescribed periods are to be considered as mandatory, the concerned Custom House/Commissioner, in such an eventuality, should have immediately taken corrective action and possibly not waited so long for appointment of another Inquiry Officer. 9. Be that as it may be, the moot point is that the ninety-day limit prescribed in Regulation 20(5) ibid has been breached, which can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
