2018 (4) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xports, Chennai declaring export of "Granite Slabs Snow White". However, the Customs authorities found that the consignment entered for export contained the contraband in the form of "Red Sanders" In the proceedings initiated against the exporters, the goods were confiscated. Subsequently proceedings were initiated against the appellant under CBLR. The Licensing Authority appointed an enquiry authority to enquire into the alleged offences against the Customs Broker. The Enquiry Authority submitted his report on 25/01/2017 in which the appellants were held guilty of various offences under the CBLR. Upon consideration of the Enquiry Report and after grant of personal hearing, the impugned order dt. 26/09/2017 was passed by the Licensing Autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned AR justified the impugned order. It is her submission that the appellant has been found involved in the attempt for exporting of contraband i.e. Red Sanders, the export of which is prohibited under the Import Trade Control Regulations. She explained that the delay in passing of the order by the Licensing Authority was on account of the fact that the incumbent Commissioner was transferred and the new officer assumed charge only after a few months. Hence she submitted that the delay is explainable and the impugned order may be sustained.    5. We heard both sides and perused records. 6. The proceedings against the appellant have been initiated consequent upon the detection by the Customs authorities of an attempt by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f offence report. The Hon'ble High Court held that it is not the case of Revenue that time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) is only directory and not mandatory. It was held that it is an accepted fact that the time limit prescribed therein has to be strictly adhered to. The Hon'ble High Court is clear in the finding that the period of limitation prescribed by a rule of procedure cannot be diluted. Hence, we find the original authority's attempt to distinguish the said decision, as not applicable to the Present case, is not well founded Further, his reliance on Madras High Court decision in Hyundai Motors India (supra) is totally misplaced. The Hon'ble High Court in that case was dealing with powers of Government of India....