2016 (6) TMI 348 - HC - Customs

Court overturns license revocation citing procedural errors, stresses compliance with time limits.

The Court set aside the order revoking the Customs Broker license due to procedural violations, including the delayed issuance of the show cause notice ... Period of limitation - Revokation of Customs Broker licence and forfeiture of bank guarantee - Illegal import by M/s NGR International - SCN was issued beyond the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report by the Respondent - Held that:- it appears that an enquiry report dated 4th March 2015 was forwarded by the Inquiry Officer only on 10th March 2015 which was 13 months after the suspension of the licence. It is thereafter that the impugned order dated 1st June, 2015 was passed after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Hence, there has been a violation of the time limits set out in Regulation 20 of the CBLR (corresponding to Regulation 22 of the CHALR). Recently this Court in the case of HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (General) [2016 (5) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had reiterated that the time limits in Regulation 20 of the CBLR/Regulation 22 of the CHALR are sacrosanct. In the present case, the SCN under the CHALR/CBLR was issued only on 9th December 2013, i.e., beyond the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report by the Respondent, i.e., 31st January, 2013. Consequently, all proceedings pursuant thereto are held to be invalid. Further, even the enquiry report was not submitted within a period of 90 days of the issuance of the SCN. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside by revoking the licence of the petitioner. - Decided in favour of petitioner Issues: Challenge to revocation of Customs Broker license and forfeiture of bank guarantee due to procedural violations.The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the revocation of a Customs Broker (CB) license and the forfeiture of a bank guarantee by the Commissioner of Customs. The challenge was based on the procedural irregularities in the issuance of the show cause notice (SCN) and the subsequent proceedings. The SCN was issued beyond the prescribed 90-day period from the date of receipt of the offence report, violating Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013 (CBLR). The petitioner's license was initially suspended, and despite an appeal to the Customs Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and subsequent orders, the procedural lapses continued.The Court noted that the SCN was issued after the stipulated 90-day period, rendering all proceedings invalid as per the regulations. The inquiry report was also delayed significantly, being submitted 13 months after the initial license suspension. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limits set out in the regulations, citing previous decisions that highlighted the importance of adhering to these timelines. The Court referred to various cases, including Shankar Clearing & Forwarding v. C. C., Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S. K. Logistics, and others, underscoring the significance of timely compliance with procedural requirements.In light of the procedural violations and the failure to adhere to the prescribed time limits, the Court set aside the impugned order revoking the petitioner's license. The judgment reiterated the sacrosanct nature of the time limits specified in Regulation 20 of the CBLR/Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in such matters. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party.