2016 (9) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations 2004 as amended and the amount of security was also forfeited. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant made submissions on the merits of case to plead that offence of the appellant was not so grave as to warrant revocation of CHA license. However, we do not find it necessary to reproduce submissions on merit for reasons which will become evident in the following paragraphs. Ld. Advocate also pleaded that the SCN under Regulation 22(1) ibid was issued on 05.06.2012 but the inquiry report was submitted by the IO on 20.03.2015 i.e. more than 21 months after the issuance of SCN under Regulation 22(1) ibid. He cited Madras High Court judgment in the case of AM Ahmad Co. vs CC Chennai 2014 (309) EL....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct has clearly held that breach of the time limit prescribed in Regulation 22 is fatal to the order and set aside the order on that ground. As regards the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Burliegh International (supra) cited by Ld. DR, we have perused the same and find that in that judgment the issue was whether the order issued by Commissioner more than 15 days after the date of hearing under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR would be sustainable. The Delhi High Court held that such order would be sustainable. However, we find that there is a qualitative difference between the timeline prescribed in Regulation 19(2) of CBLR vis a vis timeline prescribed in regulation 22 of CHALR Regulation. 19(2) of CBLR and Regulation 22(5) ....