CESTAT sets aside customs broker license suspension order for exceeding 90-day time limit under Regulation 20 CBLR 2013

CESTAT Chennai set aside the customs department's order directing continuation of suspension of a customs broker's license. The customs broker was accused of unprofessional methods including fabrication of redemption fine and penalty in clearing imported goods. The tribunal held that the show cause notice issued on 20.12.2013 was beyond the mandatory 90-day time limit prescribed in Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013, as the prohibitary order was issued on 05.06.2013. The department also failed to submit an inquiry report despite appointing an inquiry officer. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Alleged unprofessional conduct by Customs Broker during clearance of imported goods.
2. Violation of time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice u/s Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013.

Issue 1: Alleged unprofessional conduct by Customs Broker
The appellant, a Customs Broker, was involved in manipulating an Order-in-Original related to the clearance of goods imported via a Bill of Entry. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs imposed a redemption fine and penalty, but an employee of the appellant's office altered the amounts on the order, leading to the importer paying more than required. Subsequently, the appellant faced suspension and a Show Cause Notice for revocation of license. The appellant argued that the employee responsible for the alterations had been dismissed and that they were not involved in the manipulation. The Tribunal considered the facts and held that the Order directing for continuation of suspension was not legal and proper.

Issue 2: Violation of time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice
The appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice issued beyond the 90-day limit prescribed by Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 was invalid. The Department failed to submit an offence report within the stipulated time frame, and the Show Cause Notice was issued after the deadline. Citing precedents and legal provisions, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limit and ruled that the failure to comply with Regulation 20 rendered the Order for continuation of suspension unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Order directing for continuation of suspension and the Show Cause Notice were invalid due to non-compliance with the prescribed time limit under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---