TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns CHA license revocation due to time limit non-compliance</h1> <h3>M/s. Shivoy Enterprise, CHA Versus C.C. (General), New Delhi</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order revoking the CHA license due to non-compliance with the mandatory time limits under CBLR, 2013. ... Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - failure to observe the time limits strictly prescribed under CBLR, 2013 - Held that: - Regulation 20(1) contemplates issue of Show Cause Notice to the customs broker by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of Offence Report. The issue of Show Cause Notice is to be followed within a period of 90 days by submission of Inquiry Report by Asst. Commissioner /Dy. Commissioner and ultimate passing of the order by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of Inquiry report - perusal of the records of the present case reveals that the initial Show Cause Notice under Regulation 20 has been issued only on 12.05.2014 even though the licence was suspended on 26.03.2013. Hon'ble Madras High Court has emphasised the observance of time limits strictly under the CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013 in the case of Saro International Freight System Vs. CC, Chennai [2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - the time limits prescribed are to be mandatorily followed. The order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is liable to be set aside on these grounds - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Challenge against order revoking CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit based on time limit and merit.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order revoking the CHA license issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, due to alleged irregularities at ICD, Tughlakabad. The suspension of the license was confirmed under Regulation 19(2) by the Commissioner. The appellant challenged the order on time limit and merit grounds. The appellant argued that the Commissioner failed to adhere to the time limits specified under CBLR, 2013. Additionally, the appellant denied contravening the provisions of CBLR, 2013.Under CBLR, 2013, Regulation 19 empowers the Commissioner to suspend a custom broker, with the procedure outlined in Regulation 20. The time schedules prescribed under CBL Regulations, 2013 are crucial, including the issuance of Show Cause Notice, preparation of the Inquiry Report, and passing of the final order, all within specified time frames totaling 270 days or 9 months. In this case, the Show Cause Notice was issued well beyond the prescribed time limit, raising procedural irregularities.Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in similar cases, the importance of strictly adhering to time limits under CBLR, 2013 was emphasized. The High Court highlighted the mandatory nature of the time limits, as prescribed by the Central Board, and stressed the significance of following the regulations diligently. The Tribunal also cited previous decisions where orders were set aside due to non-compliance with time limits, reinforcing the mandatory nature of the prescribed schedules.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the order revoking the CHA license was issued without adhering to the mandatory time schedule as required by CBLR, 2013. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the grounds of non-compliance with the time limits specified under the regulations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
