TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 24th February 2015 and one dated 2nd May 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013 ('CBLR 2013'). 2. The background facts are that the Petitioner was granted licence No. R-49/Del/Cus/2012 on 10th October 2012 by the Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi under Regulation 9(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004 ('CHALR 2004') to work as customs house agent ('CHA')/ Customs Broker (CB). The said license was valid up to 9th October 2022. It is stated that several exporters and importers approached the Petitioner for clearance of their respective consignments and the Petitioner after verif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defence and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs." 7. In the present case as far as W.P.(C) Nos. 1734, 2134 and 2135 of 2016 are concerned, the relevant date for the purposes of issuance of show cause notice ('SCN') to the Petitioner was ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report by the customs authority from the DRI, which was 18th February 2015. The SCN was issued by the Commissioner of Customs on 2nd February 2016 to the exporters including M/s Saay Exim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orfeited for failure to comply with Regulation 11 of CBLR 2013 and be asked to pay penalty under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the CBLR 2013. 10. The fact that the SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 2nd February 2016 is not disputed by the Respondents. It has been sought to be submitted by Ms. Sonia Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent that the above SCN should be read along with the corrigendum issued on 1st February 2016 to the SCN dated 19th September 2015 issued under the CA, and therefore should be treated as having been issued on 19th September 2015 itself. 11. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission for the simple reason that the SCN dated 19th September 2015 was not issued under the CBLR 2013. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was noted as under: "7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an overall time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of Issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue the SCN and therefore complete the enquiry within the time limit specified in Regulation 20. Consequently the said order dated 23rd March 2015 is hereby declared to be invalid and set aside on that basis. 15. Now turning to W.P.(C) No. 4397 of 2016, the facts of the case are that the offence report dated 28th March 2016 was received by the Customs from the Joint Commissioner, SIIB-export on 31st March 2016. This concerned the alleged illegal imports made by the three parties, i.e., M/s Rajkumar Impex, C.P. Exporters and Raj Kumar Impex (P) Ltd. Imports were made by the said three parties under 50 bills of entry. Upon further investigation it was revealed that more than ten CHAs/CBs including the Petitioner were involved. By an order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n obvious error in the impugned order. It is not clear as to the precise nature of the alleged violation committed by the Petitioner and whether it was qua the transactions involving M/s Universal Enterprises or the transactions involving Chaman Lal & Sons and Shyama Corporation. What appears to have happened is that in drafting the suspension orders qua each of the 10 CHAs/CBs there has been a mix up of facts. This by itself is sufficient to show that there was a total non-application of mind to the facts involving the Petitioner as far as the decision to suspend its CB licence was concerned. 19. The other point urged by learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the decision to suspend the license should be for the reason tha....