2021 (9) TMI 768 - AT - Customs

Appeal granted, order revoked due to invalid notice, procedural delays noted. Correct regulations emphasized.

M/s. Sri Shipping Services Versus Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore

M/s. Sri Shipping Services Versus Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore - TMI Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal against the prohibition order.2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 for exports made in 2003.3. Allegations of failure to exercise due diligence and compliance with CHALR regulations.4. Delay in adjudication process.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the appeal against the prohibition order:The Tribunal initially disposed of Appeal No. C/351/2010, challenging the prohibition order dated 24.8.2010 by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, stating that the appeal was not maintainable. This decision attained finality as no further appeal was filed by the appellant.2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 for exports made in 2003:The appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice issued on 7.8.2006 under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 was not maintainable for exports conducted in 2003, as the CHALR, 2004 came into force only on 23.2.2004. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the applicable statutory provisions during the relevant period were those of CHALR, 1984. The Tribunal emphasized that the Preamble of CHALR, 2004, which superseded CHALR, 1984, did not apply retrospectively to actions done or omitted before its enforcement. Hence, the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent proceedings under CHALR, 2004 were deemed unsustainable in law.3. Allegations of failure to exercise due diligence and compliance with CHALR regulations:The Show Cause Notice alleged violations of Regulation 13(a), (d), (e), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004, accusing the appellant of failing to obtain necessary authorizations, not advising clients to comply with the Customs Act, and not exercising due diligence. However, the Tribunal found that these allegations could not be sustained under the CHALR, 2004 for actions that occurred in 2003. The Tribunal noted that during the relevant period, there was no specific proforma for obtaining authorization, and filing of shipping bills was considered sufficient authorization.4. Delay in adjudication process:The Tribunal observed significant delays in the adjudication process. The Show Cause Notice was issued in 2006, with personal hearings conducted in 2007 and 2008, yet the order revoking the license was only passed in 2011. The Tribunal considered this delay as a factor contributing to the vitiation of the proceedings.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order revoking the license and directing the forfeiture of the security deposit, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs. The judgment emphasized the applicability of the correct regulations based on the timeline of events and addressed procedural delays impacting the validity of the adjudication process.