TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri J.C. Patel with Ms. Shamita Patel, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Ramesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against the Order in Original CAO No 18/CAC/CC(G)/SRP/CBS(Admn) dated 16.03.2015 of the Commissioner Customs (General) Mumbai. By the impugned order Commissioner has held as follows: I, Shyam Raj Prasad, Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Regulation 20(7) and 18 of CBLR, 2013 (Regulation 22(7) and 20(1) of the then CHALR, 2004) hereby order the revocation of the CB License of M/s Mehul Co, CB No 11/755 (PAN No AAAFM5945Q) with immediate effect and also order the for feature of entire amount of Security Deposit of M/s Mehul Co. The CB is also directed to surrender all the custom passes forthwith, if lying in their possession. 2.1 Appellants herein are Custom Brokers having license No 11/755 and were operating in terms of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (erstwhile Custom House Licensing Regulations, 1984). They had filed a Bill of Entry No 8060973 dated 27th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit contained in Regulation 20, cannot be construed to be mandatory and is held to be directory. As it is already observed above that though the time line framed in the Regulation need to be rigidly applied, fairness would demand that when such time limit is crossed, the period subsequently consumed for completing the inquiry should be justified by giving reasons and the causes on account of which the timelimit was not adhered to. This would ensure that the inquiry proceedings which are initiated are completed expeditiously, are not prolonged and some checks and balances must be ensured. One step by which the unnecessary delays can be curbed is recording of reasons for the delay or non adherence to this time limit by the Officer conducting the inquiry and making him accountable for not adhering to the time schedule. These reasons can then be tested to derive a conclusion whether the deviation from the time line prescribed in the Regulation, is reasonable . This is the only way by which the provisions contained in Regulation 20 can be effectively implemented in the interest of both parties, namely, the Revenue and the Customs House Agent. 16. In the light of the aforesaid dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of Madras High Court in the case of A H Ahmed and Co [2014 (309) ELT 413 (Mad)], it would be unfair to impose extreme penalty of revocation of license. Shri Sanjay Mishra was their employee and it is unfair to hold that appellants have sub-letted the license to him/ person bringing the clearance work [K S Sawant Co [2012 (284) ELT 363 (T)], L M S Transport Co [2014 (299) ELT 368 (T)] From the record of examination and cross examination of Shri Vishnu Kushwaha Proprietor of importing firm I Jack Globe Co, Shri Sanjay Mishra employee of the appellant and Shri Mohammed Sibtain Abdul Bashir Power of Attorney holder of importer that the import documents were signed by Shri Vishnu Kushwaha who had also signed the authorization in their favour. Shri Kusheaha had provided the Appellant KYC documents etc. No evidence has been placed on record that they or their employee were aware of the misdeclaration. The punishment of revocation of license is an extremely harsh measure and not justified in the facts of the present case. Suspension of license since 12.07.2013 itself is sufficient punishment. [Ashiana Cargo Services [2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del)] The impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Customs of the glaring discrepancies in the impugned imports and instead sought to get the goods cleared by evading the Customs duty. They had definitely failed to discharge the duties cast on them under CBLR 2013, efficiently and in the manner prescribed. Appellants have failed to identify the client and functioning of the client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, date or information and hence had violated provisions of Regulation 13(o) of CHALR, 2004 (now 11(n) of CBLR, 2013). Revocation of the license of CB is justified for their failure in performing their duties as mandated b CHALR, 2004 (now CBLR, 2013). 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 The first issue that needs to be considered is whether the delay in conducting the enquiry proceedings and revocation of license of Appellant has been explained/ justified by the adjudicating authority as has been mandated by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay while remanding the matter back to the CESTAT. The date chart submitted by the appellants detailing the conduct of proceedings is detailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o explanation has come forth for the delay in issuance of the notice which was issued beyond 90 days of the receipt of offence report. Also the delay in start of inquiry proceedings after the issuance of notice also is not explained. Finally what was the reason for not calling Shri Mehul Sanghawi immediately after 11.02.2014, is also not coming forth. Why he was called for examination after lapse of nearly six months too is not explained and thereafter without any actual examination of Shri Mehul Sanghawi, the proceedings were concluded and report submitted on 15.12.2014 i.e. after lapse of more than 90 days from the date when last date of proceedings was fixed. In our view the delay at every stage of proceedings is not a justifiable delay in conduct of proceedings which effect the lively hoods of a person. Order of Bombay High Court has authoritatively laid down the law that delay needs to be explained by the authority. Except for a bald statement that Shri Mehul Sanghawi had made himself non traceable no other justification has been put forth. What were the steps taken by the inquiry officer during the period intervening 11.02.2014 to 07.08.2014 for tracing and calling the Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
