9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Cochin issued show cause notice F.No.S34/01/2015 dated 02.03.2015. And thereby an inquiry officer was appointed who after thorough investigation submitted detailed report to the Commissioner. The Commissioner in the impugned order based on the offence report, statements, inquiry report and other investigations held that 'there is no finding to the effect that the appellant or any of its employees had conspired in the attempted smuggling operation.' Thus, taking a lenient view resisted from revoking the license but ordered forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by this order the appellant is in appeal before us praying that the order needs to be set aside. 2. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order confirming forfeiture of security deposit is unreasonable, unjustifiable and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the entire proceedings are barred by limitation. As per Regulation (20) of the CBLR 2013, the notice should be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report and in the present case the statement was recorded from the Managing Partner on 15th October 2013 and the notice was issued on 02.03.2015 which is much late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and once again he was informed to appear 09.06.2015 but he failed to attend again. Finally, on 19.06.2015 another opportunity was provided to Shri Loganathan to appear for cross examination by the appellant but he failed to appear. These opportunities provided for the appellant caused the delays in finalising the inquiry report and therefore the delay cannot be attributed for any negligence on the officers concerned. 4.2 The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Principal Commr. of Cus. (General), Mumbai Versus Unison Clearing P. Ltd. 2018 (361) E.L.T. 321 (Bom.) dated 19-4-2018 observed that: "14. Adherence to the time schedule prescribed in the Regulation 20 in a rigid way would lead to a situation where non-compliance with the time frame and even deviation by a single day would resultantly invalidate the entire action and the licence which is under suspension or which is revoked, is liable to be restored. The procedural formality as required to be complied within the time frame prescribed in the regulation, even if it is deviated for whatsoever reason beyond the control of the revenue or the Customs House Agent would result into consequences of declaring the entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as already discussed above. There might be reason why such time limits cannot be adhered to and these reasons may be at times attributable to the revenue and some time to the Customs house agent. Strict adherence to the said time limit and not making it even slightly flexible would warrant a situation where even one day deviation from the time line would be equally fatal as a delay of one year. This surely is not the intention in framing the Regulation. Undisputedly, the intention is to curb the delay in concluding the inquiries, however, it should not be stretched to an extent where it would defeat the very purpose of the Regulation, being to enforce a regime of discipline in the Customs arena and it would result in letting the miscreant set loose by taking benefit of deviation of the time schedule. The said CESTAT West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai (supra) has in detail dealt with the Regulation 22 and has examined whether it has to be construed as mandatory or directory. Relying on catena of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and specifically in Delhi Air Take Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." 4.3 As seen from Para 4.1, it is clear that 3 dates were given to Shri Loganathan to appear for the cross-examination, which he failed to do so. Hence, the applicants claim that they are not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the persons concerned fails. 4.4 The undisputed fact is that the appellant had filed the Shipping Bill No.7365519 dated 07.09.2013 on behalf of the exporter M/s. M. M. Industries. On 25.09.2013, the container said to contain 'Natural Slate Stones' (multi pink) was opened and examined by the officers of the customs for which the above shipping bill was filed and it was noticed that 'Red Sander wooden logs' was being exported in the guise of Shri. C. Suresh the 'H' card holder of the appellant, in his statement recorded on 26.09.2013 stated that he was working as a clerk with the Appellant and he looks after the export and import documents filing and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
