TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 42038 of 2015 - FINAL ORDER No. 40609/2019 - Dated:- 26-3-2019 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Ms. K. Nancy, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (A.R) for the Respondent ORDER PER BENCH The dispute in this appeal comes up decision concerns the revocation of licence of the appellant under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. Vide the impugned order dt. 28.08.2015, the licence of the appellant was revoked and security deposit made by them was ordered to be forfeited under Regulation 20 (7) of the CBLR. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, which requires the Customs Broker to submit within thirty days a written statement of defence, etc., to the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner nominated by the said Commissioner of Customs. The procedures for revoking the licence or imposing penalty are found in Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013. As per Regulation 20(2), an Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Customs is appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs Broker. As per Regulation 20 (5), the Inquiry Officer is required to submit his report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of a Notice under Regulation 20(1) ibid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect. In the light of the discussions, findings and conclusions hereinabove and in particular, following the ratio laid down in the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate, we hold that the entire proceedings have been vitiated by non-adherence to the time-limit for submission of Inquiry Report prescribed in Regulation 20(5) ibid. Once this is so, the impugned Order, which is a resultant of such Inquiry Report, also gets vitiated and will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. 4.3 In Gudwil Maritime Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held as under: 6. The proceedings against the appellant have been initiated consequent upon the detection by the Customs authorities of an attempt by the exporter to export contraband in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that it is not the case of Revenue that time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) is only directory and not mandatory. It was held that it is an accepted fact that the time limit prescribed therein has to be strictly adhered to. The Hon ble High Court is clear in the finding that the period of limitation prescribed by a rule of procedure cannot be diluted. Hence, we find the original authority s attempt to distinguish the said decision, as not applicable to the present case, is not well founded. Further, his reliance on Madras High Court decision in Hyundai Motors India (supra) is totally misplaced. The Hon ble High Court in that case was dealing with powers of Government of India to extent the imposition of anti-dumping duty after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order of the original authority is issued in violation of the provisions of CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013 and is not legally sustainable. The same is to be set-aside. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order dated 8-6-2015 of the original authority and allow the appeal. Since the order of revocation of licence has been set-aside, the appeals filed by the appellant against suspension of the said licence stand disposed of. 8. In view of the fact in the present case, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order without strictly following the time limits specified in the Customs Brokers License Regulations, 2013, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. 4.4 We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 of the report was beyond the period of 90 days as required under Regulation 20(5) and thus taken the view that the Commissioner of Customs is not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
