2019 (4) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 alleging that the appellants had neither collected the KYC of the exporter nor ascertained the correctness of the IEC and identity of the client, as prescribed in Regulations 11(a) and 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013. As per the requirements of the CBLR, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 03.05.2018, the said Inquiry Officer submitted his reported on 18.07.2018 wherein it was inter alia held that the charge of failure on the part of the Customs Broker to comply with Regulation 11(a) of the CBLR is proved. However, the charge of failure to comply with Regulation 11(n) of the CBLR is not proved. 2.3 The competent authority vide Order dated 30.10.2018 (order impugned herein) ordered revocation of the licence of the appellant under the provisions of Regulation 20(7) of the CBLR, 2013, forfeiture of Rs. 25,000/- from security deposit under Regulation 18 ibid and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Regulation 22 ibid. Hence, this appeal. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Ms. A. Aruna appearing on behalf of the appellant made a number of submissions which can be summarized....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat a period of limitation prescribed by a Rule of procedure, cannot be diluted. The decision of the Supreme Court arose out of the refusal of a Civil Court to accept a Written Statement beyond a period of 90 days stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. Therefore, the decision taken in such a case cannot be relied upon. 24. Similarly, the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in Aval Exports vs. Union of India (2014 (301) E.L.T.14 (Del.), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, cannot also go to the rescue of the respondents. The case before the Delhi High Court concerned some applications filed for the issue of value based duty free licences in accordance with the Export and Import policy in vogue. The applications were kept pending for some time and eventually, the policy itself underwent a change. When the matter was taken up, it was argued that the applications ought to have been disposed of within the time stipulated. But the said argument was rejected, on the ground that the time prescribed therein was only directory and not mandatory. 25. In the case on hand, it is not the contention of the respondents that the time limit prescribed in Re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resentation of the broker, pass such orders, as he deems it fit either revoking the suspension order or imposing penalty within 90 days from the date of submission of the report. As this Court has already found that the very filing of the report was beyond the period of 90 days as required under Regulation 20(5) and thus taken the view that the Commissioner of Customs is not entitled to proceed further under Regulations 20(6) and 20(7) as stated supra, the impugned show cause notice cannot have legs to stand any more, as naturally it has to fall on its own, in view of the lapse committed by the Officers as stated supra, as the inquiry report, pursuant to the issuance of the show cause 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an overall time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of Issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/DC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations." 7. This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time-limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Schankar Clearing & Forwarding v. C.C. (Import & General) - 2012 (283) E.L.T. 349 (Del.), the order dated 25th April, 2016 passed by this Court in Customs Appeal No. 14/2016 (Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S.K. Logistics) and t....