9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation 20 (7) of the CBLR. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellants, Ld. Advocate Ms.K. Nancy submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the time limit fixed in Regulation 20 of CBLR has not been followed. She submits that whereas the report of the Inquiry Officer should be submitted within a period of 90 days from the issue of SCN under Regulation 20 (5), in this case it has been issued well beyond that period. So also, the order of the competent authority is required to be issued within 90 days after receipt of the inquiry officer's report as per Regulation 27 of the CBLR. However, this time has also not been complied with. 2.2 She relies upon the following cases laws : (i) KMK Shipping and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ninety days from the date of issue of a Notice under Regulation 20(1) ibid. 7. 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. The case laws relied on by the Ld. Advocate are indeed some of such decisions and judgements. As observed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in Santon Shipping Services (supra) "once the limitation prescribed is mandatory, as has been declared by the courts of law, it cannot be stated that, because of other issues, that is the merit of the case, this mandatory requirement of the limitation can be ignored". When this is so, it is incumbent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities of an attempt by the exporter to export contraband in the form of "Red Sanders". Proceedings stand initiated against the appellant resulting in the revocation of the Customs Brokers Licence. The main submission on which the impugned order has been challenged is that the order has been passed without satisfying the strict time limits laid down in the CBLR. The specific contravention of time limit highlighted by the appellant is that after the enquiry report was received on 25/01/2017, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order only on 26/09/2017. Regulation 20 (7) provides that the order is required to be passed within the period of 90 days. Since the strict time limit has not been complied with in the present case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia to extent the imposition of anti-dumping duty after the expiry period. The Hon'ble High Court was dealing with entirely different set of legal provisions and facts and circumstances. We find the Hon'ble High Court's decision in A.M. Ahamed & Co. (supra) is directly dealing with CBLR and the legal sanctity of time limit prescribed under the Regulations. As such, we find the order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule in every stage is liable to be set-aside on this ground. 7. Further, we find that the original authority agreed with the appellant's submission that the inquiry report in its entirety is a verbatim repetition of show cause notice issued under Customs Act, 1962. He further records tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous applications are also disposed of." 4.4 We also note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which is the jurisdictional High Court for this forum, in a very recent decision dt. 22.11.2018 in the case of Carewell Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in W.P.Nos.26923 and 26934 of 2018 held as under : "10. Perusal of the above said decisions of this Court and the Delhi High Court would show that the time stipulated under the Regulations for issuing the show cause notice as well as the filing report is not directory and on the other hand, it is mandatory. No other contra decisions are placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents. Even the decision, which he sought to rely made in W.P.Nos.19312 and 19313 of 2016 dated 13.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs is not entitled to proceed further under Regulations 20(6) and 20(7) as stated supra, the impugned show cause notice cannot have legs to stand any more, as naturally it has to fall on its own, in view of the lapse committed by the Officers as stated supra, as the inquiry report, pursuant to the issuance of the show cause notice, was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 12. It is claimed by the Revenue that the petitioner is an habitual offender and therefore, the proceedings are rightly initiated against them. This Court is not inclined to go into such allegation against the petitioner, as this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings only on the ground of limitation, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
