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>Tribunal overturns CHA license suspension due to procedural delays and time limit violations</h1> <h3>M/s Vetri Impex Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi</h3> M/s Vetri Impex Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 610 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Confirmation of suspension order of CHA license under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004- Violation of Regulation 13(a), 13(k), 13(o), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004- Contention regarding violation of time limits prescribed in Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004- Interpretation of time limits for completion of suspension proceedings against CHA licenseesConfirmation of Suspension Order:The appeal was filed against the confirmation of the suspension order of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 20 of the CHALR, 2004. The suspension was based on the overvaluation of export consignments and various violations by the CHA, including failure to obtain authorization from the exporter, maintain prescribed records, and verify the identity of the exporter. The CHA was also accused of not properly supervising its employee, leading to a violation of Regulation 19(8) of CHALR, 2004.Violation of Regulations:The CHA was found guilty of violating Regulation 13(a), 13(k), 13(o), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004 due to discrepancies in the export consignments and failure to meet regulatory requirements. The Commissioner confirmed the suspension order under Regulation 20, citing non-compliance with the regulations and pending proceedings under Regulation 22.Contending Time Limit Violation:The appellant contended that there was a clear violation of the time limits prescribed in Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. The investigation commenced in September 2010, but the suspension order was issued in May 2011, with the confirmation order being passed in September 2012. The appellant argued that the delay in the proceedings vitiated the order and requested it to be set aside.Interpretation of Time Limits:The Circular No. 9/2010-Cus. provided guidelines on time limits for completion of suspension proceedings against CHA licensees. While the CBEC stated that the time limits were advisory, the tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to these timelines. In this case, the personal hearing was delayed by nine months, and the order issuance took seven months after the hearing, far exceeding the prescribed time limits. The tribunal noted that even advisory time limits hold significance, especially when they impact someone's livelihood and professional freedom. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the suspension order, considering the prolonged delay in the proceedings.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits in suspension proceedings against CHA licensees and highlighting the serious implications of delays on individuals' livelihoods and professional pursuits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
