Court sets aside show cause notice to Custom House Agent Licensee for violating 90-day limit on issuing notices

The court set aside the show cause notice issued to a Custom House Agent Licensee for alleged violations of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 due to exceeding the 90-day jurisdictional limit for issuing such notices. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the 90-day limitation period, ruling that failure to issue a notice within this timeframe renders subsequent proceedings unlawful. The petitioner's challenge against the notice was upheld, highlighting the violation of procedural requirements and the precedence of law in such cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged violation of Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004.
2. Suspension and revocation of CHA license without following due process.
3. Jurisdictional validity of the show cause notice.
4. Alternative appellate remedy against the order.

Issue 1: Alleged violation of Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004:
The petitioner, a Custom House Agent Licensee, faced allegations of violating Regulations of CHALR, 2004 by signing blank shipping documents, not verifying exporter antecedents, and allowing fraudulent export practices. The respondent charged the petitioner with violating Regulation 13(a), 13(b), 13(f), and 13(o) of CHALR, 2004 based on investigations and reports from CBI regarding exports made by specific companies. The petitioner challenged these allegations and subsequent actions taken against them.

Issue 2: Suspension and revocation of CHA license without following due process:
The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, prohibited the petitioner from customs-related activities without issuing a show cause notice or granting a personal hearing, leading to the suspension of the CHA license. The petitioner contended that the suspension order was set aside in a previous writ petition, highlighting the lack of due process in the actions taken against them.

Issue 3: Jurisdictional validity of the show cause notice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notice issued on 18.12.2012 was based on a report from CBI in August 2010, exceeding the 90-day jurisdictional limit for issuing such notices under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004. Citing the Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala case, the petitioner claimed that the notice should have been issued before November 30, 2010, and thus, the notice was liable to be set aside.

Issue 4: Alternative appellate remedy against the order:
The respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Regulation 22(7) of CHALR, 2004, through an appeal before CESTAT, making the present writ petition non-maintainable. However, the court considered the validity of the show cause notice based on procedural grounds and the jurisdictional timeline for issuing such notices.

The court analyzed the provisions of CHALR, 2004, particularly Regulation 22(1), which mandates the issuance of a notice within 90 days from the receipt of an offense report for suspension or revocation of a CHA license. Referring to a previous judgment, the court emphasized the mandatory nature of the 90-day limitation period, stating that failure to issue a show cause notice within this timeframe renders subsequent proceedings unlawful. In this case, the show cause notice was issued well beyond the 90-day limit, making it invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned show cause notice and allowed the writ petition, citing the precedence of law and the clear violation of procedural requirements.

---