TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpletion of suspension proceedings against a license holder - Evidently, the purpose is to ensure that suspension is not indefinite and proceedings are completed promptly so as to cause the least prejudice to the parties concerned. In this case this constitutes the fourth violation of the time limits. In the case dealt with by the Division Bench in SANTON SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , there was a violation only of one timeline whereas, as noticed by me earlier, in the present case the time lines set out have been violated not once, but on four occasions. Thus, the impugned order has no legs to stand, particularly, sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (2).......... (3).......... (4).......... (5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording his findings thereon submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1). (6).......... (7) The Principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort and submit the same within a period of 90 days from date of issuance of the notice contemplated under Regulation 17(1). As we saw earlier, the notice under Regulation 17(1) is dated 30.08.2019, whereas the enquiry report is prepared only on 12.06.2020, which constitutes a violation of timeline set out under Regulation 17(5), violation two. 6.Thirdly, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the enquiry report, passed an order either suspending or revoking the license within 90 days from submission of the enquiry report. The enquiry report is dated 12.06.2020 and the order-in-original thus ought to have been passed within a period of 90 days i.e. on or before 11.09.2020 whereas the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led position as revealed from the various decisions discussed, the issue as to whether limitation prescribed under the CBLR, (in that case Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR, 2004, which, admittedly, is in pari materia with the Regulations considered now), would be mandatory or not was no longer res integra and stood settled. 10. At paragraph-42, they say that once the limitation prescribed is held to be mandatory, then the force of that mandate would have to be adhered to strictly. Moreover and additionally, the Central Board of Excise and Customs in Circular No.9/2010-Cus., dated 08.04.2010 in F.No.502/5/2008-Cus VI has set out an overall time limit for completion of suspension proceedings against a license holder and states in para-7.1 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
