TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een issued within ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report and since no such notice had been issued, the order of suspension could not be permitted to be continued indefinitely. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:- 3.1 The petitioner is engaged in the profession of providing services of customs broker to importers/exporters vide License no. R-4/97 issued by the Customs Authority under Regulation 8(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereafter 'CHALR'). The said License was issued to the petitioner on 06.01.1997 and was valid up to 31.12.2016. 3.2 It is stated that in the course of its business, the petitioner transacted customs business through ICD Tughlakabad for following two exporters: i. M/s Vee Dee Textile ii. M/s S.S. Exports 3.3 An inquiry was initiated by the officers of ICD, Tughlakabad against some exporters, which was then transferred for investigation to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The DRI investigated some consignments of export covered under 260 shipping bills pertaining to 21 exporters for which Let Export Orders were issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the respondent passed the impugned order confirming the suspension of the petitioner's License. 4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the impugned order has not been followed by any further proceedings for revocation of the petitioner's License. It is the petitioner's case that the order of suspension is an interim measure and is required to be followed by proceedings for revocation of the License in terms of Regulation 20 of the CBLR. Thus, the respondent is required to take final view whether to revoke the petitioner's License or to terminate the proceedings. It is stated that Regulation 20 of the CBLR provides for strict timelines within which the said proceedings for revocation of the License are to be completed. Since, in the present case, no such proceedings have been initiated, the impugned order cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely and is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port Import), Chennai v. CESTAT, Chennai: 2014 (310) ELT 673 in support of his contention that the order of suspension of license ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsion, the further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in regulation 20. 20. Procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty: (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense 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. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of the written statement from the Customs Broker, or where no such statement has been received within the time-limit specified in the notice referred to in sub-regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may, to inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs Broker. (5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings are to be culminated within the period of thirty days; that is, fifteen days to provide a hearing to the Customs Broker and fifteen days thereafter to pass the order. 9. The question whether the time limits specified in Regulation 20 of the CBLR are mandatory is no longer res integra. This Court has in numerous decisions rendered in the context of CHALR, 2004 (which is now replaced by CBLR) held that the time limits prescribed under the Regulations are mandatory. 10. In Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General) & Ors: 2016 (337) ELT 41 (Del) the Division Bench of this Court had observed as under:- 7. This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Schankar Clearing & Forwarding v. C. C. (Import & General) 2012 (283) E.L.T. 349 (Del.), the order dated 25th April, 2016 passed by this Court in Customs Appeal No.14/2016 (Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S. K. Logistics) and the order dated 29th April, 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 3071/2015 (M/s Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of Customs (General) New Customs House). The same position has been reiterated by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R. It is further contended by the respondent that it had not received the offence report as yet and, therefore, the timelines under Regulation 20 have not commenced. This Court does not find the aforesaid contention to be persuasive. 15. The expression 'offence report' has not been defined. However, it is apparent that the same must mean a report indicating that an offence has been committed by the Customs Broker. This is also how the said term has been understood by the authorities. The expression 'offence report' was also used in Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004. In terms of the said Sub-regulation, the Commissioner of Customs was required to issue a notice within 90 days of the receipt of an offence report, indicating the grounds on which the License of a Customs House Agent was proposed to be revoked/suspended. The Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued a circular (circular no.9/2010-Customs dated 08.04.2010) in regard to certain issues that had arisen with regard to the implementation of CHALR, 2004. Paragraph 7.2 of the said circular is relevant and is quoted below:- " 7.2 In cases where immediate suspension action against a CHA is required to be taken by a Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arily be considered as an offence report since that has triggered the action against the petitioner. The contention that the offence report mentioned in Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004 is synonymous to the Show Cause Notice, which would be issued by the Custom Authorities is difficult to accept. The expression 'offence report' must be considered in the context in which the expression is used and as per its plain meaning; that is, a report indicating detection of an offence. Thus, the respondent was required to issue a notice under Section 20(1) of CBLR within a period of ninety days from the receipt of such report; that is, within the period of ninety days from the receipt of letter dated 16.02.2015. Concededly, no notice under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR has been issued as yet. 18. A conjoint reading of Regulation 19 & 20(1) indicates that the Commissioner of Customs may in appropriate cases suspend the License without hearing but must provide a hearing within a period of fifteen days and pass the order confirming the suspension within a period of fifteen days thereafter. Assuming that the Commissioner has passed an order suspending the license immediately on receipt of offence r....