Customs Department's Appeal Dismissed for CHA License Revocation Delay

Commissioner of Customs (General) Versus S.K. Logistics

Commissioner of Customs (General) Versus S.K. Logistics - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 39 (Del.) Issues:
1. Adherence to time limits under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) for revocation of license.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for inquiry and submission of report.
3. Justification for delay in inquiry process and submission of report.
4. Comparison with a similar case regarding time limit violations.
5. Consideration of precedential value of CESTAT orders.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal by the Customs Department against an order revoking the Customs House Agent (CHA) license of the Respondent due to a violation of the time limit specified under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. The issue revolves around the adherence to procedural requirements for revocation of the license.

2. The Customs Department issued a show cause notice (SCN) to the Respondent based on an offense report, initiating an inquiry process. However, the first Inquiry Officer retired without submitting a report within the stipulated 90 days, as required by Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. Subsequently, a second Inquiry Officer submitted a report, leading to the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit.

3. The Court noted that the delay of over three years in submitting the inquiry report was unjustified. The Department failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, attributing it to the retirement of the first Inquiry Officer and the inability to trace the file. Such reasons were deemed insufficient to justify the prolonged delay in completing the inquiry process.

4. The Court addressed a comparison with a similar case where the CESTAT's decision was cited by the Senior Standing Counsel. However, it was clarified that the previous case did not involve a plea regarding the violation of the time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. Therefore, the precedent cited was deemed inapplicable to the current case.

5. The Court emphasized that it was not bound by the precedential value of CESTAT orders. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal and application, upholding the CESTAT's decision that the revocation of the license was vitiated in law due to the unjustified delay in submitting the inquiry report. No substantial question of law was found to warrant further consideration by the Court.