Customs broker license suspension set aside due to revenue authorities' failure to complete proceedings within 270-day CBLR 2018 timeframe

CESTAT Chennai set aside the suspension of a customs broker's license under CBLR 2018. The court found that revenue authorities failed to complete proceedings within the prescribed 270-day timeframe (90+90+90 days) for alleged violations from October/November 2022, with only suspension action taken after nearly two years. The tribunal held that prolonged inaction by authorities caused miscarriage of justice, affecting the appellant's livelihood and employees. Balance of inconvenience favored the appellant, as continuing business operations would not harm revenue interests. The suspension order was set aside, allowing license restoration while permitting authorities to conclude initiated proceedings according to law.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against the continuation of suspension of license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the order of suspension of license issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, arguing that the suspension was beyond the time frame provided under Regulation 17 of CBLR. The first show cause notice did not mention any offense report, and the Commissioner concluded violations without conducting a proper inquiry. The second appellant did not file a Bill of Entry, questioning the basis of the suspension order. The appellants claimed that the suspension affected their livelihood and requested setting aside the order until the completion of proceedings. The Revenue failed to provide an inquiry report, further challenging the validity of the suspension order.

The Tribunal refrained from delving into the merits of the case as the proceedings were at a preliminary stage. The key issue was whether the order for the continuation of suspension was sustainable. The Tribunal noted relevant dates from the documents, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the prescribed time frame under CBLR. The delay in completing proceedings had severe consequences for the appellants and their employees, impacting their livelihoods. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of punishment for previous violations and emphasized that the alleged background of the appellants was not proven, thus not relevant to the present violations.

The Tribunal expressed concern over jeopardizing the business and livelihood of the Customs House Agent (CHA) due to inaction by the Revenue authority. It noted that the appellants should not be left without a remedy due to delays or inaction by the authorities. Despite acknowledging the Revenue's inactivity in adhering to the CBLR's limitations, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order, allowing the appellants to continue their business. The balance of inconvenience favored the appellants, and the Revenue would not be significantly affected by lifting the suspension. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to proceed with the pending proceedings in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order for the continuation of suspension, disposing of the appeals in favor of the appellants.

---