TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady only on 30.12.2020. By this time, the Government had already promulgated the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 on 31.3.2020. The Ordinance was replaced by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Act and the Ordinance came into force with effect from 31st day of March 2020 - 30th day of December, 2020 was the end date of the period during which the time limit specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (except sections 30, 30A, 41, 41A, 46 and 47), the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) for the completion or compliance of such action as specified under clause (a) or (b) of Section 6 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (No.38 of 2020). 31st day of December 2021 was construed as the last day to which the time limit for completion of compliance of such action was extended. The 1st respondent has given approval for transmitting the enquiry report only on 02.02.2021. Thus, it cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.R-397-CHA (Case File) dated 21.06.2020 issued by the first respondent/Principal Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 17(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 for revocation of license. 4. The said Show Cause Notice also calls upon the petitioner to show cause why the security deposited by them should not be forfeited and why penalty should not imposed on the petitioner under Regulation 14 and 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The first respondent / Principal Commissioner of Customs is the licensing authority under the aforesaid Regulation. 5. In W.P.No.5787 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the impugned letter dated 03.02.2021 bearing reference F.No.R-397-CHA (Case File) towards Inquiry Report of the Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Customs (COO) dated 30.12.2020 under Regulation 17(5) of the aforesaid regulation. 6. The principle attack in these writ petitions is that in terms of Regulation 17(5) of the aforesaid Regulation, Inquiry by the Inquiry Officer ought to have been completed within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 21.06.2020 . 7. In other words, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi High Court in the following cases:- (i) Carewell Shipping Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai , 2019 (368) E.L.T. 1059 (Mad.) (ii) KTR Logistics Solutions Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai , 2020 (371) E.L.T. 685 (Mad.) (iii) Indair Carrier Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (General) , 2016 (337) E.L.T. 41 (Del.) (iv) Impexnet Logistic Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) , 2016 (338) E.L.T. 347 (Del.) (v) Thilagarathinam Match Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, 2013 (295) E.L.T. 195 (Mad.) (vi) Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. CC (I G), IGI Airport, New Delhi, 2017 (354) E.L.T. 447 (Del.). 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the decision of this Court in HSN Shipping Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai , 2020 (372) E.L.T. 689 (Mad.), wherein, following decisions were followed:- (i) Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Private Limited Vs. Commissioner , 2016 (332) E.L.T. 300 (Mad.) (ii) Patriot Freight Logistics System Vs. Commissioner , 2017 (350) E.L.T. 59 (Mad.) (iii) Santon Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner in C.M.A.No.730 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is further submitted that there are no Internal Rules of Business for transmitting the aforesaid Inquiry Report as the Assistant Commissioner of Customs/ who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer directly reports to the first respondent, while, giving report under the regulations 17(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. 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). Hence, he submits that there are no merits in the present writ petitions. 18.It is further submitted that after the Inquiry Report on 30.12.2020 was submitted with the first respondent/Principal Commissioner of Customs, the first respondent/Principal Commissioner of Customs has to merely pass a Speaking Order under the Regulations by imposing penalty or revoking the license or dropping the charges. Hence, it is though submitted that these writ petitions are premature and are liable to be dismissed. 19. The case was heard o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st December 2008 could be said to have been passed on 31st December 2008 when the demand notice together with a copy of the order was served after 47 days. He submits it was wide gap of 47 days time was not long enough make anyone suspicious as regards the correctness of the date of the order. In any case, the presumption arise in view of clause (e) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 proves the fact that the order was passed on 31st December, 2008. 24. The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Shriwin Shipping Logistics vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, W.P.No.15544 of 2019. Para Nos.14,19, 20 and 25 are reproduced below:- 14. Now that this court as a matter of judicial discipline as mentioned supra is proceeding on the basis that various time frames adumbrated in Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018 are mandatory and not directory, what has to be examined is whether there is violation of 90 days time frame set out in sub regulation (5) of Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018. 19. Therefore, 90 days time frame stipulated under Regulation 20(5) of CBLR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/DC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations. (underlining made by Court to highlight and supply emphasis) 25. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this court comes to a conclusion that it cannot be gainsaid by writ petitioner that there is violation of Regulation 17(5) of CBLR 2018 and have the impugned order set aside on that lone ground. 25. On perusing the files, it is noticed that there are Internal communication which has been signed by the Examining Officer(Customs Broker House) [EO(CBS)], Suptd.(CBS) and AC(CBS) of the three Officers. A note was prepared for communication of the Enquiry Report dated 30.12.2020 to the petitioner. The Principal Commissioner has approved the note for sending the Enquiry Report to the petitioner only on 2nd February 2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2020 under the provisions of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 and the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21.6.2020 bearing reference is without any merits. 31. Under these circumstances, W.P.No.9145 of 2020 and W.P.No. 5782 of 2021 are liable to be dismissed. The only issue that survives for consideration is whether the communication of the enquiry report dated 30.12.2020 of the Inquiry Officer namely the Asst Commissioner of Customs (CCO)/Inquiry Ofc by the Asst Commissioner of Customs (CBS) vide letter dated 03.02.2021 bearing reference F.No. R-397-CHA (Case File) can be Said to be in Accordance with the provisions of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018. 32. As per Regulation 17 (5) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018, the Inquiry Officer has to prepare a report and after recording his findings and submit a report within 90 days from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice. 33. In this case, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.6.2020 . The suspension of the license of the Customs House broker license of the petitioner was on 12.6.2020. Both the event were during the period when the country was under lock-dow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notified under, the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (except sections 30, 30A, 41, 41A, 46 and 47), the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) falls for the completion or compliance of such action as specified under clause (a) or (b) of the said section; and (ii) the 31st day of December, 2020 shall be the end date to which the time limit for completion or compliance of such action shall stand extended. 37. Thus, 30th day of December, 2020 was the end date of the period during which the time limit specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (except sections 30, 30A, 41, 41A, 46 and 47), the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) for the completion or compliance of such action as specified under clause (a) or (b) of Section 6 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (No.38 of 2020). 31st day of December 2021 was construed as the last day to which the time limit for completion of compliance of such action was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
