2018 (5) TMI 1070

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....our earlier order. With the concurrence of both sides, the appeal itself is heard on merit. 2. The appellant is represented by Shri Dharmendra Rana, ld. Advocate as well as Shri Rakesh Kumar, ld. DR for the respondent/Department. 3. The arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is summarized below:- (i) The appellant challenges the impugned order in which the Licensing Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under CBLR 2013.The said order has been challenged on the ground of time bar as well as on merit. He submitted that as per Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR 2013, the show cause notice proposing action under CBLR is required to be issued by the Licensing Authority within the period of 90 days from the receip....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the Commissioner has recorded that the date of offence report was 27.04.2014 and since the show cause notice has been issued within the period of 90 days, the same should be considered as within time. 5. Ld. DR further justified the order on merit, arguing that the appellant has contravened the provisions of Regulation 11 (d) as well as 11 (e) and hence, the penalty imposed was fully justified. 6. At the outset, we discuss the arguments raised by the appellant that the proceedings under CBLR 2013 is time barred. It has been argued that there has been delay of more than 90 days between the offence report and the date of issue of show cause notice. Further, 90 days time limit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Mad.) (Hyndai Motors India Ltd. Vs. Union of India), wherein the learned Judge observed: "Another simple test to determine whether a time limit stipulated in a rule is directory or mandatory is to see whether there is any indication in the Rule itself about the consequences on non compliance with the same. If a statutory provision contains a prescription and also stipulates the consequences of non compliance with the condition, it would normally be taken to be mandatory. If the consequences of non compliance are not indicated, then, the provision has to be seen only as directory." 49. What follows from the above is that a consequence of not doing a particular act, if provided in the statute, would in most cases be determ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Mr. Saraf lay down correct law, and holds the time limit in regulation 20(1) as not mandatory, and that any proceeding for revocation of a customs broker's license beyond ninety day of receipt of offence report would not per se stand invalidated by mere reason of such belated initiation." 8. In the result, we are led to the conclusion that the proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated only for the reason that the time limits specified in the CBLR 2013 have not been strictly observed. 9. Next, we turn to the issue on merits. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant stands initiated in connection with the 12 shipping bills filed by the appellant on behalf of the exporter, M/s. Chandrahans Brothers, Jodhpur, for export of pol....