AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Agents Licence Regulations, 2004 (in short, 2004 Regulations). 1.2. Via, W.P.44344 of 2016, challenge is laid to the order dated 09.02.2015, whereby, the petitioner's licence has been revoked and the entire security deposit has been ordered to be forfeited. 2. Notice in these petitions was issued on 02.01.2017. Since then, counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit, wherein, an attempt has been made to explain, inter alia the delay in moving the Court by way of the instant writ petitions. 3. Briefly, the facts which obtain in the present writ petitions and are required to be noticed are as follows: The petitioner was granted a Customs House Agents (CHA) Licence by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 25.02.2013. It is infact the stand of the respondents before me that a copy of the Enquiry Report was forwarded to the petitioner on 28.02.2013 with a request to make a representation, if any, qua the findings written by the Enquiry Officer. 3.4. Concededly, no reply was filed by the petitioner to the findings contained in the Enquiry Report. Furthermore, it appears that despite several opportunities being given, the petitioner did not appear for a personal hearing except on 07.11.2014. The hearings fixed on 25.07.2014, 12.08.2014 and 27.08.2014 were not attended to by the petitioner. As per the stand of the respondents, on 07.11.2014, the petitioner i.e., Mr.Sahaya Edin Prabhu, Proprietor, along with his Manager, Mr.G.Achuthan, appeare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), New Delhi. 7. On the other hand, Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petitions should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is the learned counsel's contention that the show cause notice was issued as far back as on 15.12.2011 and that the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of nearly six years. 8. Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan has further submitted that even the revocation order was issued as far back as on 09.02.2015 and the petitions have been filed only in 2016. On being queried, Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan has fairly submitted that the view taken by this Court with regard to limitation is squarely against the respondents. 9. I have heard the learned counsels ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the time limit is strictly followed, swift action can be initiated against the Customs Brokers and the authorities can also be made accountable. The Regulations only contemplate initiation of proceeding by issuance of notice within 90 days. While, making out a prima facie case, the respondents ought to have, without any shadow of doubt, treated the word shall in Regulation 11 as mandatory and not directory. Therefore, when a time limit is prescribed in Regulations, which empowers action in Regulation 18 and procedure in Regulation 20 (1), the use of the term shall cannot be termed as directory. It is pertinent to mention here that the CBLR, 2013 have replaced the CHA Regulations. The CHA regulations did not have any time limit to complete t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich a licence can be suspended or revoked under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 20. Regulation 20(1) reads as follows:- "20.Suspension or revocation of licence. (1) The Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 22, revoke the licence of a Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely : (a) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 10; (b) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or anywhere else; ....