TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs, Nhava Sheva to the importer as well as the petitioner, being his authorised representative. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, passed a prohibition order dated 19.01.2018 prohibiting the petitioner from working in Mumbai Customs Zone. The first respondent passed an order dated 19.02.2018 under Regulation 19(1) of Customs Broker License Rules, 2013, suspending the license of the petitioner. A post decisional hearing was conducted on 28.02.2018. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 14.03.2018, continuing the suspension of the license was passed until further orders. The petitioner was further issued with a show cause notice dated 13.04.2018 proposing to revoke the license, forfeit the security deposit and impose penalty. The said show cause notice was issued under Regulation 20(1) of the said Rules. The third respondent was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted their reply dated 25.04.2018 and appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 14.05.2018. The Inquiry Officer made a report on 14.08.2018 and the same was forwarded to the petitioner on 20.09.2018. The third respondent has concluded that the allegation of violation of the Regulation 11(d) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention, the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del), Impexnet Logistic vs Commissioner of Customs (General) and the Division Bench decision of this Court made in CMA No.738 of 2016 dated 13.10.2017 are relied on. ii) In so far as the challenge against the impugned suspension order is concerned, the same was passed without disclosing and giving a finding as to what is the necessity for taking immediate action to suspend the license as required under Section 19(1). If the impugned order does not disclose any reason for issuing the suspension as an immediate action, the same cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, 1995 (77) ELT 79 (Mad), East West Feight Carriers (P) Ltd. vs Collr. of Customs, Madras, is relied on. Even otherwise, since the show cause notice itself is challenged on the ground that further proceedings is barred by limitation in view of belated filing of report, the suspension order issued contemplating inquiry against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted as follows: The offence report was issued on 13.04.2018 and the show cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of notice under Sub Regulation (1). It is contended by the respondents that the time stipulated under Regulation 20(5) for filing such report is only directory and not mandatory. The very same issue was considered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a case reported in 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del), Impexnet Logistic vs Commissioner of Customs (General). The Delhi High Court at paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 has observed as follows: "6. From the list of dates submitted by the Respondent, it appears that an enquiry report dated 4th March, 2015 was forwarded by the Inquiry Officer only on 10th March 2015 which was 13 months after the suspension of the licence. It is thereafter that the impugned order dated 1st June, 2015 was passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 7. It is plain that in the case there has been a violation of the time-limits set out in Regulation 20 of the CBLR (corresponding to Regulation 22 of the CHALR) in the decision dated 12th May, 2016 in Cus. AA 25/2015 (Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General) [2016 (337) E.L.T. 41(Del)] this Court held: "6. The time l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court reiterated that the time-limits in Regulation 20 of the CBLR/Regulation 22 of the CHALR are sacrosanct. 9. Admittedly, the SCN under the CHALR/CBLR in the present case was issued only on 9th December, 2013, i.e. beyond the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report by the Respondent, i.e. 31st January 2013. Consequently, all proceedings pursuant thereto are held to be invalid. Further, even the enquiry report was not submitted within a period of 90 days of the issuance of the SCN. 10. Consequently, the Court set asides the impugned order dated 1st June, 2015 passed by the Respondent revoking the licence of the petitioner." 9. The other decision relied on by the petitioner is the decision made in CMA No.732 of 2016 dated 13.10.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court. In the said decision, the Division Bench, after following the Delhi High Court decision reported in 2016 (337) ELT 41 (Del), Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (General), has observed at paragraph No.42 as follows: "42. Once the limitation prescribed is mandatory, as has been declared by the courts of law, it cannot be stated that, because of the other i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice, was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 12. It is claimed by the Revenue that the petitioner is an habitual offender and therefore, the proceedings are rightly initiated against them. This Court is not inclined to go into such allegation against the petitioner, as this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings only on the ground of limitation, as discussed supra. If the petitioner is an habitual offender, as alleged by the Revenue, it is not known as to what prevented the concerned authorities in proceeding against the petitioner by following the mandatory requirements contemplated under law. When there is a lapse on the part of the concerned authority in not making the report within the time stipulated which prevents further proceedings, the Revenue has to blame itself for such lapse, especially when the Courts have held that the period of limitation prescribed under the Regulation, as discussed supra, is mandatory. Therefore, it is for the authorities to be more vigilant in complying with the mandatory requirements under law, while proceeding against an offender without giving room for any lapse even on technicalities. 13. ....