TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the petitioner is a Custom House Agent Licensee issued with regular licence in Form-D by Tuticorin Commissionerate which is valid upto 03.02.2019. The petitioner applied and permitted to transact Customs Clearance work in the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Station vide CHA Licence No.TUT/04/2004 with PAN AAEFG2457K under Regulation 9(2) of CHALR 2004. While so, based on the investigation report received from CBI, the respondent had alleged a case against the petitioner on the ground that during the period 13.12.2005 to 04.04.2006, 42 shipping bills and 17 shipping bills were filed by the petitioner on behalf of M/s.Ajay Exports and M/s.Sunitha Metal Corporation, Chennai, declaring the goods as ''stainless steel utensils''....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Customs, Chennai, based on the investigation report from the investigation agency with respect to exports made by M/s.Ajay Exports and M/s.Sunitha Metal Corporation, prohibited the petitioner from working/performing the customs related activities at the Ports of Chennai Customs Zones. According to the petitioner, the alleged shipping bills were filed during the period 13.12.2005 to 04.04.2006 by M/s.Ajay Exports and during 23.01.2006 to 05.04.2006 by M/s.Sunitha Metal Corporation, Chennai. The shipping bills were filed during the year December 2005 to April 2006 by the above exporters and due to prohibition order of Chennai Customs, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, respondent herein, without issuing any show cause notice as envisa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012 that CBI investigated the case and sent report during 2010 itself and based on that report only, further action has been taken and prohibition order had been passed on 30.09.2010 and then suspension order on 04.03.2011 which was set aside in the said writ petition. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned show cause notice dated 18.12.2012 is based on the report issued in August 2010 by the CBI which gives the dispute of alleged offence of the petitioner and the same was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, before this Court. This being so, any show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR should have been issued before 30th of November 2010. In this context, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocedure prescribed under Regulation 22. Regulation 20(2) r/w 20(3) provides for immediate suspension of licence without following the procedures prescribed under Regulation 22. The proceeding under Regulation 20(1) and Regulation 20(2) are independent of one another by virtue of the non-obstante clause in Regulation 20(2). According to the petitioner, when any action is proposed under Regulation 20(1), then procedures prescribed under clauses (1) to (8) of Regulation 22 has to be necessarily followed and as per Regulation 22(1), the Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Custom House Agent within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report. 9.Before going to decide the issue involved in this writ petition,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 issues, that is the merit of the case, this mandatory requirement of limitation can be ignored. 43.It is not the case of the 1st respondent that the 90 days limitation period under Regulation 22(1), is directory. It is also not the case of the 1st respondent that the show cause notice was issued within the limitation period of 90 days from the date of offence report. 44.Since the offence report was dated 22.09.2010 and the show cause notice, admittedly, was issued only on 18.11.2011, there can be no doubt that the said show cause notice was issued well beyond the period o....