TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders expedited completion of enquiry process under CHALR, emphasizing timeliness to resolve suspension issue.</h1> <h3>M. DHARAMDAS & CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL)</h3> M. DHARAMDAS & CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) - 2015 (316) E.L.T. 600 (Bom.) Issues:Appeal against CESTAT order suspending CHA license under CHALR; Delay in enquiry proceedings under CHALR; Compliance with Circular No. 9/2010-Customs; Completion of proceedings before Enquiry Officer and Licensing Authority under CHALR; Timeframe for completing enquiry under CHALR; Enforcement of Regulation 22 of CHALR; Interim order for completion of process by Commissioner of Customs.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the CESTAT order suspending the appellant's license as a Customs House Agent (CHA) under Regulation 20 of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR). The appellant sought either a hearing of the appeal or an interim stay of the order to continue business as a CHA due to delays in the enquiry proceedings under CHALR.The appellant's counsel argued that the enquiry proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR involved seven charges, with hearings held for four charges and pending for three charges. They contended that a stay of the impugned order should be granted until the enquiry is concluded.Reference was made to Circular No. 9/2010-Customs, stating that the Licensing Authority must decide to suspend a CHA license within fifteen days of receiving the Investigating Authority's report, submitted within thirty days of detecting an offense. The appellant claimed that the delay in the investigation and suspension order violated the Circular, rendering the order under Regulation 20 of CHALR unlawful.The Court acknowledged the delay in completing the proceedings, causing prejudice to the appellant, whose business license remained suspended pending the enquiry under CHALR. Emphasizing the importance of expeditious completion, the Court directed both parties to expedite the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and the Licensing Authority.Regulation 22 of CHALR stipulates a maximum timeframe of 180 days for completing the entire enquiry process, from issuing the notice to the Commissioner of Customs' decision. The Court noted that the authorities had exceeded the prescribed time for completing the enquiry, urging the respondent to conclude the process promptly.In an interim order, the Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to ensure completion of the entire process under Regulation 22 of CHALR, including issuing an order, by a specified date. The order was passed without prejudice to the parties' rights in the main appeal, with the case scheduled for further hearing on a later date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
