Court dismisses writ petition challenging Customs Broker license revocation, directs appeal to CESTAT

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the revocation of a Customs Broker license, ruling that the proceedings were not time-barred as they commenced under the previous regulation without specific time limits. The petitioner's claim of non-service of notices was rejected as they were found to have received relevant communications at their old address. The court directed the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies before the CESTAT, excluding the period from filing the writ petition to receiving the order copy from the appeal's limitation computation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation in issuing the show cause notice and completing the inquiry.
2. Non-service of notices and orders on the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

Limitation in Issuing the Show Cause Notice and Completing the Inquiry:
The petitioner challenged the revocation of their Customs Broker licence primarily on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued well beyond the 90-day period stipulated under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulations (CBLR), 2013. Additionally, the inquiry report was submitted after 10 months, exceeding the 90-day period from the notice issuance date. The final order was passed six months after the inquiry report, again breaching the 90-day limit.

The court examined the applicability of the CBLR, 2013, versus the Customs House Agent Licence Regulation (CHALR), 2004. It was noted that the incident occurred when CHALR, 2004, was in force, which did not prescribe specific time limits for such actions. The CBLR, 2013, came into effect on 21.06.2013, and the court held that actions initiated under CHALR, 2004, were not bound by the time limits stipulated in the CBLR, 2013. The court concluded that the proceedings were valid and not barred by limitation since they commenced under the CHALR, 2004, which did not have the same time constraints.

Non-Service of Notices and Orders on the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that they did not receive the show cause notice, inquiry report, or other relevant communications because these were sent to their old address, despite having notified the department of their change of address in 2011. The respondent countered that the petitioner received the order of suspension and other communications at the old address, indicating that they were still operating from that location.

The court found that the petitioner had received the suspension order and other communications at the old address, and even used this address in their appeal to the CESTAT. The court accepted the respondent's argument that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had been adopting delaying tactics. The court rejected the petitioner's contention of non-service of notices and orders, concluding that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to raise the issue of the change of address in a timely manner.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting both grounds of challenge—limitation and non-service of notices. The court directed the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy before the CESTAT for any other factual contentions. The period from the filing of the writ petition to the receipt of the certified copy of the order was excluded from the computation of limitation for filing the appeal.

---