TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant. On further investigations, it was found that the appellant was found guilty of violation of sub-regulations (d), (e) and (n) of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, the Commissioner revoked the licence along with forfeiture of security deposit and in addition, imposed penalty of Rs.50.000/- under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018. 3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation as it has not been issued within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the offence report. It is further submitted that the exporter M/s. Zain Trading is a proprietorship firm and the proprietor is Shri Mohammed Arjas; while Shri Shaan Basha is the Finance (Head) and also Authorization is signed by Shri Shaan Basha. Therefore, there is no illegality in accepting the above authorization. It is also submitted that the appellant had taken due diligence while undertaking the activities assigned to him with proper documentation and therefore, there is no violation of any of the Regulations under 10(d) and 10(e). 3.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the appellant is not supposed to physically visit the premises of the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... M/s. Sri Manjunatha Cargo Pvt. Ltd. C.S.T.A. No.10/2020 dated 12.01.2022, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed as follows : "10. The question whether the time limit for issuing the show-cause notice and for completion of the inquiry report and passing of orders after receipt of the inquiry report are mandatory or directory as has been considered by the division bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Unison Clearing P. Ltd. In the case on hand the court had considered the provisions of Customs Broker's licensing regulations 2013 and in paragraphs 6,11 and 15, it has been observed as follows: 6. A perusal of the aforesaid regulations would reveal that a procedure is prescribed for revocation of a licence of a Customs Broker and for imposition of penalty on the grounds set out in Regulation 18. Regulation 19 provides for suspension of a licence in contemplation of an inquiry against a broker or pending an inquiry which authorizes the Commissioner of Customs to suspend the licence of the Customs broker forthwith, where immediate action is necessary. [sub-regulation] (2) of Regulation 19 contemplates a post-decisional hearing where the licence is suspended in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly will be invalid, but if the provision is held to be directory then even though there is no strict compliance with the provision, the act will be valid, though it may give rise to some consequences, if provided by the statute. It is no doubt true that the purpose of Regulation 20, which governs the Customs House agents is to inculcate discipline and a pattern in discharge of their duties and working. The regulation ensures to safeguard the right conferred on the Customs house agent by conferring the minimum protection by prescribing a period of licence and once such licence is granted unless and until there is a default on part of the Customs House Agent, its renewal is assured. However, the default on part of the Customs House Agent needs to be inquired into before depriving the Customs House Agent of his licence. At the same time the interest of revenue is also sought to be protected by the regulation which authorises the Commissioner of Customs to revoke the licence and forfeit the part of or whole of the security or even to impose a penalty in the circumstances identified by the regulation. In order to maintain the regime of discipline, the Commissioner is also authorised to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch circumstances, if the provision is construed in such a rigid form and no flexibility is allowed, though it results into declaration of the entire action of the revenue as illegal, would it ensure justice or defeats it? 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the time limit contained in Regulation 20 cannot be construed to be mandatory and is held to be directory. As it is already observed above that though the time line framed in the Regulation need to be rigidly applied, fairness would demand that when such time limit is crossed, the period subsequently consumed for completing the inquiry should be justified by giving reasons and the causes on account of which the time limit was not adhered to. This would ensure that the inquiry proceedings which are initiated are completed expeditiously, are not prolonged and some checks and balances must be ensured. One step by which the unnecessary delays can be curbed is recording of reasons for the delay or non-adherence to this time limit by the Officer conducting the inquiry and making him accountable for not adhering to the time schedule. These reasons can then be tested to derive a conclusion whether the deviation from the time lin....