Court overturns delay in inquiry, revives Customs license due to non-compliance with time limits.

Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (General)

Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (General) - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 41 (Del.) Issues:
1. Failure of Customs authorities to complete proceedings concerning revocation of Customs House Agent license within stipulated time period.
2. Appellant's appeal against CESTAT order and subsequent Show Cause Notice issued by Respondents.
3. Adherence to time limits under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
4. Legality of CESTAT's directions to complete inquiry within additional 60 days.
5. Validity of Show Cause Notice, inquiry report, and order revoking license.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involves the failure of Customs authorities to complete proceedings regarding the revocation of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license within the time period specified in Regulation 22(5) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR).

Issue 2:
The appeal filed by M/s. Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. against the CESTAT order dated 11th March, 2015, and the subsequent Show Cause Notice issued by the Respondents on 17th March, 2015, are under consideration.

Issue 3:
The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of time limits prescribed under CHALR 2004 and Circular No. 9/2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The time limits for issuing Show Cause Notice and completing the inquiry within 90 days are crucial and must be adhered to.

Issue 4:
The Court found the CESTAT's direction to complete the inquiry within an additional 60 days to be impermissible, considering the mandatory time limits under CHALR had not been followed. The CESTAT's order directing the completion of proceedings was set aside.

Issue 5:
The Show Cause Notice issued post the CESTAT order, the subsequent inquiry report, and the order revoking the license were deemed unsustainable in law and set aside. Consequently, the revoked CHA license of the Appellant was ordered to be revived immediately, and if expired, the renewal application was to be processed without delay.

In conclusion, the Court's decision revolved around the strict adherence to the prescribed time limits under the CHALR 2004 and Circular No. 9/2010, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the CESTAT's directions and the subsequent actions taken by the Respondents against the Appellant.