Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of security were unsustainable because the inquiry report was not submitted within the period prescribed under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004.
Analysis: The notice under Regulation 22(1) was issued on 20.03.2012, but the inquiry report under Regulation 22(5) was submitted on 07.01.2015, far beyond the prescribed 90 days. The expression used in Regulation 22(5) is "shall", indicating a mandatory requirement. The comparison with Regulation 19(2) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 did not assist the Revenue because that provision uses different language and operates in a different procedural setting. In view of the binding view that breach of the timeline under Regulation 22 is fatal, the impugned order could not be sustained. The merits of the alleged misconduct were not examined further once the order was found time-barred.
Conclusion: The revocation order was held unsustainable on account of breach of the mandatory timeline and was set aside, with consequential relief.
Final Conclusion: The disciplinary action against the CHA licence failed for want of compliance with the prescribed inquiry schedule, and the appellant obtained relief on the ground of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory inquiry provision governing revocation of a CHA licence prescribes a time limit in mandatory terms, non-compliance renders the resulting order unsustainable.