AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1043
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucted by the DRI, it emerged that goods exported under a Shipping Bill No. 3875216 dated 29.08.2010 declared as textiles and readymade garments, were found to have been used to smuggle out 51.23 kgs of goods alleged to be Ketamine, as informed by the Malaysian Customs Authorities on interception of the impugned container after it reached that country. From the investigations conducted, it appeared that one Shri. D. Arulraj, partner of the appellant and in charge of the Chennai Branch of the appellant was actively involved in facilitating the alleged smuggling. 2.2 The DRI issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25.02.2011 under the provisions of the Customs Act inter alia proposing imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 196....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribes an outer time limit of nine months from the date of the offence report for completion of the proceedings against the errant CHA. The time limit so prescribed is mandatory and not directory as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ind Air Carrier Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) reported in 2016 (337) E.L.T. 41 (Del.) and in the case of Impexnet Logistic vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) reported in 2016 (338) E.L.T. 347 (Del.). On this score alone, the entire proceedings against the appellant culminating in the impugned Order passed by the respondent stands vitiated; (iii) That from a reading of the materials especially the Show Cause Notice issued by the DRI under Section 124 of the Customs Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitiated thereunder. He contends that any such time limits brought about by the Board Circular would require to be followed only by the Department Officers and cannot be considered as a part of the Regulations; the appellants therefore cannot take the help of such a Board Circular in their defence. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the matter. 6. From the facts on record, we find that the DRI had forwarded an offence report dated 20.09.2010 to the Chennai Customs authorities. Immediately thereon, an order of Prohibition against the operation of the CHA licence of the appellant was issued by the Chennai Customs on 24.09.2010 and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin for further a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Delhi High Court has held as under : "6. The time-limits in the CHALR, 2004 for issuance of the SCN to the CHA licence holder and completion of the inquiry within 90 days of issuance of such SCN are sacrosanct. The aforesaid time-limits were engrafted into Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 by a Notification No. 30/2010-Cus. (N.T.), dated 8th April, 2010. Simultaneously, the CBEC issued Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8th April, 2010 clarifying the procedures governing the suspension and revocation of CHA licence. In Para 7.1 of the said Circular, it was noted as under : "7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltece Associates - 2016 (334) E.L.T. A50 (Mad.). 8. Consequently, the Court is unable to sustain the directions issued by the CESTAT in the impugned order dated 11th March, 2015, permitting the Respondents to proceed with and complete the inquiry within a further period of 60 days from the date of the impugned order of the CESTAT despite noting that the mandatory time-limits under the CHALR had not been adhered to. The impugned order dated 11th March, 2015 of the CESTAT is accordingly set aside. 9. As a result, the SCN issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner pursuant to the order of the CESTAT on 17th March, 2015, the consequential inquiry report dated 16th April, 2015 and the order dated 7th May, 2015 passed by the Respondents revo....