Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 1416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eeking to know as to why their license shall not be revoked in terms of Regulation 14(c) of Regulation 17 of CBLR pointing out to contravention of various provisions of the Regulations of CBLR, 2018, the Adjudicating Authority has vide Order-in- Original No.HYD-CUS-003-COM-23-24 ordered for revocation of CHA license and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the appellant company. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant takes the preliminary objection on the ground that the Department has not followed the time frame in the present proceedings. He submits that in respect of offence committed by 2 importers show cause notices were issued to the 2 importers on 07.12. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ause notice should have been issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence reported. If the 18.01.2022 is considered as the date of knowledge by the Department, then the show cause notice was issued after more than 6 months and if the second letter dated 31.03.2022 is considered, then the show cause notice was issued after about three and half months from this date. In both these cases, the Mandatory requirement of issuing the show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report is not getting fulfilled. Therefore, he says that on this ground itself the entire proceedings are getting vitiated. 3. He further takes us through the enquiry report no. 04/02-IC SNR dated 18.10.2022 prepared by the Deputy Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the present appellant was not made a co-noticee in the show cause notices issued to these 2 importers could clarify that the appellant had not played any role whatsoever in the alleged contraventions or provisions by these importers. Further, as enumerated in the previous paragraphs, principles of natural justice was not followed. The show cause notice was issued much beyond the time limit of 90 days prescribed after the date of filing of Enquiry Report by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant also submits that because of the alleged transactions carried out by their employee, the present appellant and their 13 employees are suffering for the past many years as the Customs House License has been revoked in 2023. Based on these submis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed is mandatory. Hence, we hold that the time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(7) is not mandatory but only directory." [Emphasis supplied] 9. We find that Regulation 20(7) of the CBLR 2013 is paramateria with the Regulation 17(7) of the present Customs Broker License Regulation, 2018 which is applicable in the present case before. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, we hold that the time limits set are not mandatory in nature but only directory in nature. Therefore, we do not subscribe to the view of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the entire proceeding would get vitiated, since the time limit framework has not been followed by Revenue. However, even if these time limits are taken as directory, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y of the breach proved to have been committed by him. While examining this issue, the fact that the appellant did not have any role in what was done by Sri. Vipin Kumar and his team and that the lapse found is supervisory lapse assumes importance the absence of any previous misconduct on the part of the appellant has also to be considered. Yet another aspect that is required to be notices is that from 18.10.2012 when Annexure A1 order was issued, the license issued to the appellant remained suspended and by Annexure A8 order dated 31.5.2013 the license has been terminated. In other words, for the misconduct of his workers, for which the appellant is also responsible, it has suffered the penalty of being kept out of business from 18.10.2012. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates