2018 (12) TMI 1198 - HC - Customs

Court sets aside Customs Broker License revocation, penalties, forfeiture order citing Regulation violations. Respondent allowed lawful proceedings.

The Court allowed the writ petition challenging the revocation of the Customs Broker License, penalties, and forfeiture of security deposit, citing ... Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - Imposition of penalty - time limitation - it is contended that the impugned order passed beyond the period of limitation cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction - Held that:- From Regulation 20(1), it is seen that the Commissioner of Customs shall have to issue a notice to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. In this case, the show cause notice was issued only on 02.03.2017, based on the offence report dated 27.09.2016 received at the office of the respondent. Though the show cause notice does not say as to when such offence report was received by the respondent and the very notice itself was issued only on 02.03.2017, the date of issuance of such notice has to be construed as the date of receipt of offence report - Going by the date of receipt of the offence report and the date of issuance of the show cause notice, it is evident that the show cause notice issued was beyond the period of 90 days and thus, the same is in violation of Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Broker License Regulation, 2013. Limitation prescribed under Regulation 20(7) - Held that:- In this case, it is admitted in the impugned order itself that the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted before the respondent on 17.05.2017. However, the impugned order was passed admittedly, on 13.10.2017, which is clearly beyond 90 days, as required under Regulation 20(7) - this Court is of the view that issuing the show cause notice beyond the period of 90 days is in violation of Regulation 20(1) and passing the impugned order after 90 days from the date of receipt of report is in violation of Regulation 20(7). This Court is fully convinced that the impugned order cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction on the very reason that the same was passed beyond the period of limitation - petition allowed. Issues:1. Maintainability of writ petition due to limitation period violation in revoking Customs Broker License.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original revoking their Customs Broker License, imposing penalties, and forfeiting the security deposit, contending that the writ petition is maintainable as the impugned proceedings exceeded the period of limitation stipulated under the Customs Brokers License Regulation, 2013. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the date of receiving the offence report, as required by Regulation 20(1). The Enquiry Officer's report was submitted after 90 days, violating Regulation 20(7). The petitioner relied on a previous court order to support their contention.The respondent, in a counter affidavit, detailed the circumstances leading to the license revocation but did not dispute the timeline provided by the petitioner. The respondent argued that the impugned order should not be set aside solely on the ground of limitation, as the allegations were thoroughly considered for license revocation, suggesting the petitioner to file an appeal instead.The Court noted that the show cause notice was issued after 90 days from the offence report, violating Regulation 20(1). Additionally, the impugned order was passed beyond 90 days from the Enquiry Officer's report submission, breaching Regulation 20(7). Referring to past court decisions, the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limits set by the Regulations, highlighting that exceeding the prescribed time limits rendered the impugned order invalid for lack of jurisdiction.In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order due to the violations of the limitation periods under the Regulations. The ruling does not prevent the respondent from initiating lawful proceedings if valid reasons exist. No costs were awarded in this judgment.