TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the license is set aside, however the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty is upheld. 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows: The appellant is a licensed Customs broker. On 22.3.2022 on a specific intelligence gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Zonal Unit, Cochin, a consignment of oil tanks stacked in the examination shed of Q10 CFS was found to have concealed wooden logs that appeared to be red sanders wrapped in hay. The total quantity of the red sander logs recovered was 2150 KGs. The export of red sanders is prohibited under the law. Thus, a restraint order was issued on 22.3.2022 by the Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI in respect of the seized wooden logs. An explanation wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suspension to continue till a fresh decision is taken by the respondent as directed by this Court. In pursuance to the directions contained in the Judgment dated 20.6.2022 in WP(C) No.14202/2022, the Commissioner of Customs proceeded to pass order dated 1.7.2022, by which the decision to suspend the licence under Regulation 16 (1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, was affirmed. The said order was again questioned before this Court in WP(C) No. 22501/2022. A learned Single Judge of this Court issued an interim order dated 29.8.2022 staying the operation of order dated 1.7.2022. It was, however, made clear that the order will not prohibit continuation/culmination of proceedings initiated against the appellant. 4. While so,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 15.7.2024, confirmed the findings of the original authority. However, taking a sympathetic view, the order of revocation of the license was set aside, but the forfeiture of the security deposit as well as the imposition of penalty, were sustained. It is against the said order of the Tribunal that the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard Smt. Vijitha V., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. V. Girishkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that the entire proceedings for revocation of the licence were barred by limitation. According to her, in terms of sub-Regulation (1) to Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings initiated on 25.3.2022 for suspending the licence; and (b) proceedings/show cause notice dated 13.9.2022 for revocation of the licence. The power to suspend the licence is traceable to Regulation 16 (1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. In terms of Regulation 16 (1), the Commissioner of Customs in appropriate cases where immediate action is required, is empowered to suspend the licence of a Customs broker, where an enquiry against such Customs broker is pending or contemplated. No doubt, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Customs authorities before suspending the licence on 25.3.2022. The said preliminary enquiry can be construed only for the purpose of the proceedings initiated under Regulation 16 (1). It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation, if any, ought to have been taken within ninety days from the date of the said report. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. There is also another reason as to why the contention of the appellant has to fail. A reading of Regulation 17 (1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 shows that the Commissioner of Customs is under an obligation to issue a notice to show cause stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence. However, the consequence of not issuing the notice within the aforesaid period is nowhere laid down in the Regulations. Whether a particular statute, or the subordinate legislation framed under it is "mandatory" or "directory" de....