TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2015:- The Petitioner was granted a licence to operate as a customs broker after satisfying all the norms. Whileso, action has been initiated by the Mumbai Commissionerate, against the petitioner with regard to 10 Bills of Entry, through which undeclared goods were imported and prohibitory orders were issued on 02.02.2015. Aggrieved against the order, an appeal has been preferred before the Customs, Central Excise and Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. Subsequently, the respondent has passed an order on 06.05.2015, under Regulation 19 (1) of the CBLR, 2013 and the suspension order has been ordered to be continued, vide proceedings, dated 25.05.2015 and also issued the impugned show cause notice dated 25.05.2015 under Regulation 20, proposing to conduct an enquiry for revocation of license and imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of the said Regulations. Aggrieved and contenting that the notice has been issued beyond the stipulated time of 90 days as prescribed in Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR, 2013, the Petitioner has approached this Court. b. WP.No.3374/2015:- The petitioner was granted a licence to operate as a customs broker after satisfying all the norms. Whileso, during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013, on behalf of their importers wherein the goods were allegedly undervalued. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner acted as customs broker without authorisation and without verification of the antecedents and credentials of the importers, filed the bill of entry and thereby violated the regulations of CBLR, 2013 and CHA Regular License Regualtions. An order suspending the license was passed on 19.11.2014 under the regulation 19 of CBLR, 2013. Subsequently after verification, the suspension has been revoked. However, the present impugned notice dated 23.12.2014 has been issued. Aggrieved and contending that the notice is beyond the stipulated period, the petitioner has approached this Court. e. WP.No.16283 /2015:- The petitioner is a customs House Agent with a license granted under section 146 of the customs Act and is the holder of CHA Regular License. It was alleged that the petitioner filed Bill of Entry of mis-declared goods during the period April 2011 to September 2013, on behalf of their importers, wherein the goods were allegedly undervalued. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner acted as customs broker without authorisation and without verification o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the undervaluation in the 10 Bills of Entry, the goods were seized on 10.12.2014. The IEC code does not belong to the importer and voluntary statements have been given by the importers and the owners of the code under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the IEC holders were not aware of the import consignments and they were compensated monetarily and the petitioner did not physically verify the details. The voluntary statements of various persons have been extracted and relied upon to contend that there has been clear violation of the Regulations 11 and 18 of CBLR, 2013 by abetting and involving the transaction and therefore, the license was suspended under Regulation 19 (1) of CBLR, 2013 and the same was confirmed after enquiry on 25.05.2015. The notice would be in time if the Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays are excluded and the said time limit is only directory and not mandatory. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested the respondent not to take any action as the appeal before the CESTAT Mumbai is pending and it is only for that reason, no action was taken against the petitioner and being a Customs House Agent licensee, the petitioner has misused his positi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 and hence, the same is within the time limit. In any case, the time limit prescribed is directory and not mandatory. Under the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. d. WP.No.16283/2015:- The petitioner, a Customs House Broker has misused the licence and aided the import of various types of edibles by their clients and importers, M/s.Shahi Foods, Chennai and M/s.High Regards International, Chennai by mis-declartion, description, value, Retail Sale Price and evaded duty during the period April 2011 to September 2013. The petitioner have permitted middlemen Mr.Ramadass and Mr.Thangaraj of M/s.Seair Shipping Services to use the licence and clear the goods. The above acts are in clear violations of Regulations 11 and 18 of CBLR, 2013 and voluntary statements have been given by various persons involved in the transaction accepting the modus operandi. Further, the DRI has communicated about the alleged offences vide letter dated 23.10.2014 and the order of suspension was passed on 19.11.2014. Subsequently, after hearing , the order of suspension was revoked. However, it does not absolve the petitioner of the offence and therefore, the present notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough an unauthorised person E.Jaikumar. They had given voluntary statements on 30.09.2014 and 01.10.2014, stating that they had not followed the procedures under Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013 and , that E.Jaikumar did not possess the Customs I.D Card and had not verified the antecedents of the importers and received consideration from the said E.Jaikumar for using their license. The involvement of the petitioner in smuggling R-22 gas Cylinder, which is an ozone depleting substance, is clearly established, as he had without proper verification caused the Bills of Entries to be filed in their name by a third party on receipt of consideration and thereby, violated Regulations 11, 18 and 19 of the CBLR,2013. The licence was suspended on 19.01.2015 and after hearing the petitioner, the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 under Regulation 19(2) was passed, confirming the order of suspension. The impugned notice dated 26.02.2015 has been issued after taking into consideration that the petitioner has prima facie violated the provisions of the Customs Act and the CBLR, 2013 and hence, the impugned proceedings are sustainable. Further, the petitioner has stalled the enquiry proceedings by approac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Customs) dated 15.09.2015, 2011 (266) ELT 422 SC (Oryx Fisheries Private ltd Vs. Unino of India) and 2007 (207) ELT 168 SC (Siemens Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra) . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP.Nos.16283 and 12401 of 2015, has contended that the show cause notice was issued by DRI on 03.03.2014 to the petitioner in W.P.No.16283/15 and a copy of the same has been marked to the respondent. The learned counsel also pointed out that the order of suspension of license was passed on 19.11.2014 and the same was also revoked on 08.01.2015 and 23.12.2014 respectively, after taking into consideration that the offense was detected by DRI in October 2013. Hence the present notices dated 08.01.2015 and 23.12.2014 are without jurisdiction and is unsustainable. The learned counsel has contended that the period prescribed under Regulation 20 is mandatory and has relied upon the judgments reported in 2014 (309) ELT 433 (A.M.Ahamed & CO Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai), 2014 (310) ELT 673 (The Commissioner of customs, Chennai Vs. CESTAT and others), 207 (218) ELT 647 (Union of India Vs. Vicco Laboratories) and AIR 1999 SC 1281 (Babu Verghese and other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P 21941 of 2014 (Order dated 15.09.2014), W.P Nos 27726 and 27727 of 2014 (order dated 30.04.2015) reported in2015-TIOL- 1290-HC-MAD-CUS, W.P Nos 7188 and 7189/2015 (order dated 11.6.2015) reported in2015-TIOL-1524-HC-MAD-CUS, 2014 309 ELT 443 (A.H.Ahamed & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) chennai), 2009 242 ELT 487 Madras (NLC Ltd Vs. Union of India) , 1975 1 SCC 559 (Ramchandra Keshav Adke (dead) by Lrs and others Vs. Govind Joti chavare and others), 1980 2 SCC 554 (State of Bihar and another Vs. J.A.C Saldanha and otahers), 1997 II CTC 507 (MSD Thenraja Vs. Executive Officer), 1998 5 SCC 749 (Nepa Agency Co Pvt Ltd and Union of India), sought for the quashing of the impugned proceedings in both the writ petitions. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr.G.Rajagopalan appearing for Mr.M.Devendran, Standing Counsel for the respondents in WP.Nos.8946 and 17059 of 2015 has vehemently contended that the petitioners, being granted license to perform the duties of the Customs department, have misused the license and have aided in smuggling goods of harmful nature. The learned ASGI also submitted that the period of 90 days, prescribed in Regulat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere misdescribed and undervalued. It is also contended that in any case, the provisions is only directory in nature and not mandatory and without full materials, a show cause notice could not be issued and therefore, after receiving all the documents, the present notice has been issued. In addition to the judgments relied upon by the ASGI supra, the the learned counsel also relied upon the judgments in AIR 1952 SC 181 (Dattatraya Moreshwar Vs. The State of Bombay and others), AIR 1965 SC 895 (Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd Vs. Municipal Board, Rampur), 2003 8 SCC 498 (P.T.Rajan Vs. TPM Sahir), 2013 (290) ELT 3 (PML Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise), 1983 2 SCC 433 A.M.Ahamed & CO Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai) and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 9. The learned counsel Mr.RajnishPathyl, appearing for the respondent in W.P 3375/15 has contended that the present proceedings under Regulation 20 has been initiated only after prima facie case was made out against the petitioner during the enquiry. Further, the writ petition is not maintainable, as he can very well approach the CESTAT, if they are aggrieved by any order that may be passed against them. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....points arise for consideration for disposal of these Writ Petitions:- (a) Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notice are maintaintable. (b) Whether the period of 90 days prescribed in Regulation 20(1) of CBLR,2013 are 'directory' or 'mandatory'. (c) Whether the notices have been issued beyond the stipulated time. 12. Point (a): The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the impugned show cause notices have been barred by law and hence, without authority. Therefore, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked. 13. Per contra, on the side of the respondents, it is contended that the writ petitions are premature and when there is an alternative remedy, the writ petitions are not maintainable and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case Nepa Agency Co Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India (1998 5 SCC 749) was relied upon. 14. It is now settled law that the challenge to the show cause notice is not a bar, but must satisfy the following tests; (i) Where the notice is issued without authority/ jurisdiction. (ii) Where the notice is issued beyond the period pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability of the appellant and the only question which remains for consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a show cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinin, was maintainable." 16. In 2011-266-ELT-422-SC (Oryx Fisheries Private ltd Vs. Unino of India), it has been held as under:- "31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in accordance with law." 18. This court, in order dated 15.09.2014 made in W.P 21941 of 2014, has held as under:- "6. In the light of the categorical assertions and findings, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served in asking the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice. At the stage of show cause notice, the first respondent should only have an open mind. If his mind is closed with predetermined conclusions, the requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause becomes nugatory." 19. In WP.No.27726/14 batch etc. by order dated 30.4.2015, this court has held as under:- "17. A perusal of the above emphasized portion, it is clear that the respondent has categorically come to the conclusion that the Customs Broker failed to fulfill the obligation cast upon them under the regulations mentioned to therein and committed professional misconduct, while acting as custom broker. Therefore, relying upon the above emphasized portion in the show cause notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even at the stage of the show cause notice itself, the respondent has completely made up his mind and reached definite conclusio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the concerned authorities is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a Show Cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out. 31. Case of the respondent that the classification of the said products having attained finality pursuant to the decision of this Court, the appellants have no jurisdiction to issue impugned show cause notice on the ground on which it has been issued and it virtually amounts to re-opening of the issue which stands concluded by the decision of this Court, and that therefore it is an abuse ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 143(2) would be fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction. If an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158 BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of the block return. The Apex Court viewed that omission on the part of the Assessing Authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) could not be a procedural irregularity and hence was not curable and the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Thus, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in drawing an inference on mere appearance of the assessee pursuant to notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and on the note referring that "arguments are heard and the same will be considered for completion of assessment", that there was a waiver from the side of the assessee with reference to issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. He further submitted that the Revenue does not dispute the fact that there was no notice issued under Section 143(2) before passing an order of assessment under Section 148 and the notice issued un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be upheld. CONTENTION 2: 26. The second contention of the petitioner is that the importer got the dispute settled in terms of Section 127(B) of the Customs Act 1962 with the Settlement Commission. Paragraph 6.2 of the order of the Settlement Commission, relied upon by the petitioner in his affidavit reads as follows:- "The Bench observes that the applicant has made a true and full disclosure of all the facts relating to the imported goods. Besides, he has also submitted details of post importation services/repairs undertaken by him and expenditure incurred on servicing, supply of spare parts, incidental charges, etc., which were not included in the original import value of the goods. The remittances were also made by him including service charges from India to Singapore through banking channels. His remittance transactions are thus licit transactions." Therefore, it is contended that when the importer has now got a clean chit from the settlement Commission, the petitioner who is only a Broker, cannot be penalised. 27. In paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Impugned Order, the first respondent has dealt with this aspect. The first respondent ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants. The Collector of Customs has passed an order for absolute confiscation of the imported goods without giving the appellants an option to redeem the same on payment of such fine as may be considered appropriate by him. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the appellants on Section 125(1) of the Customs Act in support of the plea that the Collector had the discretion to pass such an order and he should have addressed himself to the question whether or not the discretion should be so exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Additional Collector of Customs who passed the order of confiscation undoubtedly had the discretion to give an option to the appellants to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. Presumably the Additional Collector of Customs assumed that he was bound to confiscate the goods because he has not adverted to this aspect in his order. He had undoubtedly the authority under law to give an option to the importers to pay such fine as was considered appropriate by him (not exceeding the full market value of the goods in question) in lieu of confiscation of the goods. We are of the opinion that since the Additional Collector of Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conclusion that the condition subject to which exemption from duty was granted had been violated. On the other hand, it is the case of the DRI that this issue has to be adjudicated upon. As per Section 125 of the Customs Act, if the goods are not prohibited, then the adjudicating officer shall give to the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine as the officer thinks it fit. It is only when it is a prohibited good that the officer has the discretion and it is open to him not to give the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that the goods are prohibited is not correct and deserves to be set aside. In view of the above, the finding that the goods are prohibited is set aside." 28. In 1975 1 SCC 559 (Ramchandra Keshav Adke (dead) by Lrs and others Vs. Govind Joti chavare and others) it has been held as under:- "14. Thus, the first point to be considered is, whether the requirements, of these provisions are mandatory or directory. "No universal rule", said Lord Campell" (1) can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uperintendence over police to direct a police officer to do or not to do a certain thing because at the stage of investigation the power is enjoyed as executive power untrammeled by the judiciary. It was incidentally submitted that it is an undisputed dictum of law that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain manner it shall be done in that manner alone and the Court would not expect its being done in some other manner (see State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas & Ors.(1)Expounding the submission it was stated that sub-s.(8) of s. 173 clearly indicates the power of further investigation after submission of a report and that power is conferred on the officer in charge of a police station only and, therefore, the State Government was incompetent to direct further investigation. It was further contended that in view of the provision contained in s.173(8) it would not be open to the Court to so interpret the word 'superintendence' in s. 3 of the Police Act as to empower the State Government to direct investigation being done by some one other than the statutory authority envisaged by s.173(8) because such an interpretation would derogate from the principle that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and instruction dated 20.01.2014, time limit has been prescribed in respect of the procedure contemplated under Regulation 22 and as per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22, the Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to CHA within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and require the said CHA to submit within 30 days... In C.M.A.No.1422 of 2014, the enquiry report is dated 24.05.2011 and in respect of the respondents in C.M.A.Nos.1423 to 1426/2014, the enquiry/offence report is dated 20.03.2012 and earlier to the said notification, time limit was prescribed to CHAs to submit their response within 45 days to the notice issued under Regulation 22(1), but as per the above said notification, time limit has also been prescribed for the issuance of such notice also. The Tribunal has noted the fact that though the order of suspension came to be passed on 23.06.2011 in C.M.A.Nos.1422/2014 in respect of M/s.Manjunatha Shipping Services Limited, which was ordered to continue, vide order dated 02.09.2011 and in respect of C.M.A.Nos.1423 to 1426/2014, the original orders of suspension c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o perform a statutory function within the prescribed time to be considered as directory. 37. In 2013 (290) ELT 3 (PML Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, has observed as under:- "The provisions of the statute and circular are required to be examined, as to when a provision of a statute is to be treated as mandatory or directory. It is well settled that the use of expression 'shall' or 'may' is not determinative of the fact whether the provision is directory or mandatory. There is no general rule in respect of as to when a provision is to be treated as directory or mandatory, but in every case the object of statute must be looked." 38. In AIR-1957-SC-912 (State of UP Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava), it has been held as under:- "The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must govern and these are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature, and the conseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. 58. In Sharif-Ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone [AIR 1980 SC 303], the Supreme Court indicated that the question whether a provision of law is mandatory or not depends upon its language, the context in which it is enacted and its object. The Court made an important observation, which will resolve the problem for us and hence it is extracted as follows:- "In order to find out the true character of the legislation, the Court has to ascertain the object which the provision of law in question is to subserve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If the object of a law is to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory. But when a provision of law relates to the performance of any public duty and the invalidation of any act done in disregard of that provision causes serious prejudice to those for whose benefit it is enacted and at the same time who have no control over the performance of the duty, such provision should be treated as a directory one." 63. Another simple test to determine whether a time limit stipulated in a rule is directory or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the grant of licence to act as a Custom House Agent has got a definite purpose and intent. On a reading of the Regulations relating to the grant of licence to act as Custom House Agent, it is seen that while Custom House Agent should be in a position to act as agent for the transaction of any business relating to the entry or departure of conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station, he should also ensure that he does not act as an Agent for carrying on certain illegal activities of any of the persons who avail his services as Custom House Agent. In such circumstances, the person playing the role of Custom House Agent has got greater responsibility. The very prescription that one should be conversant with the various procedures including the offences under the Customs Act to act as a Custom House Agent would show that while acting as Custom House Agent, he should not be a cause for violation of those provisions. A CHA cannot be permitted to misuse his position as a CHA by taking advantage of his access to the Department. The grant of licence to a person to act as Custom House Agent is to some extent to assist the Department with the various procedures such a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion is to subserve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If the object of a law is to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory. But when a provision of law relates to the performance of any public duty and the invalidation of any act done in disregard of that provision causes serious prejudice to those for whose benefit it is enacted and at the same time who have no control over the performance of the duty, such provision should be treated as a directory one." 43. In 1980-1-SCC-403 (Sharif Ud Din Vs. Abdul Gani Lone), the Honourable Supreme Court, has held thus:- "The difference between a mandatory rule and a directory rule is that while the former must be strictly observed, in the case of the latter, substantial compliance may be sufficient to achieve the object regarding which the rule is enacted. Certain broad propositions which can be deduced from several decisions of courts regarding the rules of construction that should be followed in determining whether a provision of law is directory or mandatory may be summarised thus: The fact that the statute uses the word 'shall' while laying down a duty is not co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first cut refuses to condone the dela. In such cases, the superior cut would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court." 45. Upon consideration of the above judgments, the ratio that emerges are that (i) any time limits prescribed in a sub-ordinate legislation can only be termed as directory, (ii) a provision as to whether it is 'mandatory' or 'directory' would depend upon the object of the enactment and (iii) the consequences of violating the provision must not affect the interest of the other party and would defeat the purpose of the enactment. 46. The Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 were promulgated in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 146 of the Customs Act,1962. It is only under the regulations, the licence is granted and the regulations also contain various provisions to regulate the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n any trade or profession as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The object behind such a provision can only imply the following: (a) the truth must be culled out at the earliest point in the interest of not only the Customs Broker or for that matter of the department also (b) that such unlawful activities must be curbed at the earliest point by revoking the licence,(c) unless a time limit is prescribed, action would not be initiated. 49. The purpose for which such time limit has been prescribed is to curb the smuggling of goods and in the result to cancel the licences of the brokers if they are involved and to impose penalty. The interpretation of a statute must always be to give a logical meaning to the object of the legislation and the aim must be to implement the provisions rather than to defeat it. As laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, when a statue prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed in such a manner. Also,the use of the language 'shall' in the regulation cannot be termed as 'directory' as one of the consequence of the action is the revocation of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... false accusation, duress or the offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or other thing of value; (j) not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole or any part of any book, paper or other record, relating to his transactions as a Customs Broker which is sought or may be sought by the Commissioner of Customs; (k) maintain upto date records such as bill of entry, shipping bill, transshipment application, etc. and all correspondence and other papers relating to his business as Customs Broker and also accounts including financial transactions in an orderly and itemised manner as may be specified by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; and keep them current; (l) immediately report the loss of licence granted to him to the Commissioner of Customs; (m) discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay; (n) verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, inde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave to be excluded, (b) the period would start to run only from the date of receipt of offence report, (c) the petitioner in WP.No.15849/2015 had sought for extension of time through his counsel and (d) the notices in WP.Nos.3375 and 12401/15 are within 90 days. 52. This court is of the considered view that the above objections are unsustainable for the following reasons viz. (i) the statute does not prescribe that the period to be reckoned are only the working days. (ii) such an interpretation is applicable only in cases where the last date falls on a holiday and the time can be extended till the next working day and not otherwise. (iii) the regulations do not define the word 'offence report' and in the absence of any such definition, it can only be from the date of knowledge of the offence as held by this court in 2014 309 ELT 433 in para 17. (iv) That the power under Regulation 18 and 20 dehors the power under Regulation 19 and the provisions of the Customs Act as evident from the reading of the Regulation 18 and 19. and upon perusal of the letters of the counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.15849/2015, thi....