2019 (5) TMI 1033 - AT - Customs

Court stresses timely compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, ruling in favor of appellant due to procedural irregularities.

Kismat Clearing Agency Versus Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time-frame stipulated in the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 for revocation of a ... Revocation of customs broker License - non-compliance with the time-frame - regulation 20 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence of any delay on the part of the appellant in the enquiry proceedings. There is a record of inability of the presenting officer to proceed with the enquiry. The further delay in submission of the enquiry report is not justifiable - the very statements that were relied upon by the enquiry authority, and the licensing authority as well as the adjudicating authority, who imposed penalties under Customs Act, 1962, were found to be exculpatory in proceedings against the appellant for penalty under Customs Act, 1962 before the Tribunal. There is no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order - appeal allowed. Issues involved:- Compliance with time-frame stipulated in Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 for revocation of license- Scope for setting aside orders of revocation at preliminary stage for non-adherence to time-frame without going into merits- Principles of natural justice arising from delay in proceedings- Evidence and justification for delay in completion of enquiry proceedings- Responsibility of licensing authority to adhere to prescribed timelines- Justifiability of delay in submission of enquiry report- Impact of delay on appellant in enquiry proceedingsAnalysis:1. Compliance with Time-Frame Stipulated in Regulations:The judgment addresses the importance of adhering to the time-frame stipulated in the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 for the revocation of a license. It emphasizes that expeditious disposal of proceedings under the regulations is crucial, especially when livelihood and employment are at stake. The court highlights that while delays may occur due to unforeseen circumstances, deliberate attempts to prolong proceedings are unacceptable. The judgment underscores the significance of timely compliance with procedural requirements to ensure substantive justice.2. Scope for Setting Aside Orders for Non-Adherence to Time-Frame:The judgment discusses the scope for setting aside orders of revocation at the preliminary stage solely based on non-adherence to the prescribed time-frame without delving into the merits of the case. It references a case where the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay remanded a matter back for a fresh decision in line with the determination regarding the time-frame compliance. The court clarifies that the decision does not nullify the intervals specified in the regulations and stresses the need for expeditious proceedings.3. Principles of Natural Justice and Delay in Proceedings:The judgment delves into the principles of natural justice arising from delays in proceedings. It scrutinizes a case where a significant delay of 310 days occurred between the notice of enquiry and the submission of the enquiry report. The court emphasizes the obligation of public authorities to adhere to prescribed timelines and ensures that the process is not unduly delayed, especially in disciplinary proceedings against customs brokers.4. Evidence and Justification for Delay in Enquiry Proceedings:The judgment meticulously examines the evidence and justification for the delay in the completion of the enquiry proceedings. It notes instances where adjournments were granted due to the unavailability of documents and lack of compliance with procedural requirements. The court holds the enquiry authority responsible for the delay and emphasizes that delays attributable to authorities should not impede the timely resolution of proceedings.5. Impact of Delay on Appellant in Enquiry Proceedings:The judgment highlights the impact of delays on the appellant in the enquiry proceedings. It underscores that the appellant did not contribute to any delays and was not responsible for the procedural setbacks. The court notes that the presenting officer's inability to proceed with the enquiry and the subsequent delay in submitting the enquiry report were unjustifiable, ultimately favoring the appellant in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment meticulously analyzes various aspects related to compliance with time-frames, principles of natural justice, and the impact of delays on the appellant in the context of revocation of a customs broker license, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to procedural irregularities and unjustifiable delays in the enquiry proceedings.