TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icers that as against fourteen packages declared in the shipping bill, there were forty seven packages listed in the Airway Bill and Bond Closure documents and the consignment was thus recalled by the Authorities and arrived back in India at 06.03.2017. Upon examination of the consignment they were found to contain forty seven packages in number as against the disclosure by the petitioners' of fourteen. 4. Further examination was initiated by the 1st respondent who also drew samples from the packages. The examination also confirmed, vide report dated 10.03.2017, that the contents of the goods did not confirm to the norms and did not constitute 'finished leather' as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioners' office premises was subjected to a search on 04.03.2017 and various documents had been seized. Pursuant thereto, allegations were made to the effect that there had been earlier instances as well where there had been no proper declaration on behalf of other exporters. 5. Based on the above sequence of events, an order dated 14.03.2018 was issued under Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Broker License Regulations (CBLR), 2013 ordering suspension of the license of the petitioner wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CMP No.15125 of 2018 was filed seeking a stay that was granted on 31.08.2018. The said Appeal is stated to be pending before the Division Bench. 9. Regulation 20 requires the issuance of a notice by the Customs Authority within ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report setting out the grounds on which the authorities propose to revoke the license or impose penalty upon the broker. The notice should call upon the broker to submit, within thirty days, a written statement of defence and also stipulate whether the broker requires a personal hearing in the matter. The specific case made out by the writ petitioner is that the notice issued in the present case dated 13.08.2018 under Regulation 20 is beyond the period of ninety days as stipulated statutorily and is liable to be quashed. 10. The petitioner relies on a series of decisions of this Court and the Delhi High Court that settle the issue that the timelines set out in Regulations 19 and 20 are mandatory and would have to be complied with strictly. The cases are as follows: (i) Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [Reported in (2016) 332 ELT 300 (Mad)]; (ii) Commissioner of Customs (Expor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nging the impugned order, specifically directing that the limitation for filing of appeal be computed by excluding the period when the order of suspension had been stayed by the order of the Court. Mr.Noorullah, thus argues that the period when the stay was in operation be excluded even in computing the period of 90 days for issuance of the notice in terms of Regulation 20(1). This, in effect, is the issue to be decided. 14. Heard both learned counsel and perused the papers and case-law cited, carefully. 15. The provisions of Regulations 19 and 20 of the CBLR are relevant for the purpose of this writ petition and are extracted herein: 19. Suspension of licence. '(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 18, the Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, suspend the licence of a Customs Broker where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. (2) Where a licence is suspended under sub-regulation (1), the Commissioner of Customs shall, within fifteen days from the date of such suspension, give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs Broker whose licence is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit eit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 days from date of receipt of offence report for issuence of notice under Regulation 20(1). The impugned notice has been issued on 13.08.2018. 18. In Masterstroke Freight (supra), this court, after an exhaustive summary of the relevant case law on this point, concludes at para 48 & 49 as follows: 48.Upon perusal of the above regulation, it can be seen that an independent right is issued to the Commissioner to initiate action de hors the enquiry under other Regulations and the Customs Act. The regulations do not only contemplate action against the erring Brokers but also contemplates timely action; No doubt that action is to be initiated against the erring brokers as laid down by this Court in the case of Kamatchi Agencies cited supra, but the same has to be in strict compliance with provisions. The law of limitation is common to both the parties. The provision not only enables the respondent to levy penalty, but also empowers the respondent to revoke the license, which is an extreme step, curtailing the right to carry on any trade or profession as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The object behind such a provision can only imply the following; (1) the truth must be cull....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....follows:- 'Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable, the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not. The existence of an adequate or suitable alternative remedy available to a litigant is merely a factor which a Court entertaining an application under Article 226 will consider for exercising the discretion to issue a writ under Article 226. But the existence of such remedy does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed. If however a party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition. The Rule is based on public policy but the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another Court. But this Court has also held in Chandra Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld thus:. '41. In view of the aforesaid judgments, in our opinion, the issue as to whether the limitation prescribed i.e. 90 days period under Regulation 22 (1) of CHALR 2004, is mandatory or not, is no more res integra. 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 the limitation can be ignored. 43. It is not the case of the 1st respondent that the 90 days limitation contemplated 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 of limitation of 90 days. 45. Whatever be the claim and counter claim on the merits, in this appeal can, in our view, they get shadowed by the failure on the part of the revenue in not acting in time, by issuing the show cause notice, within....