TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations and they are as follows: "17. Procedure for revoking license or imposing penalty (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the license or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Custom nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of the written statement from the Customs Broker, or where no such statement has been received within the time-limit specified in the notice referred to in sub-regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, to inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs Broker. (3) Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue Intelligence, the Commissioner suspended the Customs Brokers License of the appellant by order dated 15.05.2018. The suspension order was confirmed after a post decisional hearing on 07.06.2018. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 26.06.2019 was issued to the appellant requiring the appellant to explain why the Customs Brokers License should not be suspended with penalty. The records also indicate that the enquiry officer submitted the report on 25.09.2019, after which the order for revocation of the license was passed by the Commissioner on 30.04.2020. 5. It is in the light of the aforesaid facts that it has to be examined whether the procedure contemplated under regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations was followed. 6. Regulations 17(1) of the 2018 Regulation provides that the Commissioner shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report. 7. In the present case, though there is nothing on the record to indicate the date on which the offence report was received by the Commissioner, but what is important to notice is that the Customs Brokers License of the appellant was suspended on 15.05.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order and contended that it does not call for any interference. Learned authorized representative pointed out that various notices have been issued to the appellant under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, the proceedings before the Commissioner got delayed. It is his submission that the impugned order, therefore, should not be set aside for violation of the time limit set out under regulation 17. 14. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 15. The facts stated above clearly demonstrate that the time limit set out under regulation 17 (1) of the 2018 Regulations for issuance of the show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report has been violated. It also shows that the time limit set out under regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations requiring the Commissioner to pass an appropriate order within 90 days after receipt of the enquiry report has also been violated. The delay in the issuance of the show cause notice under regulation 17(1) is about nine months and the delay in passing the order under regulation 17(7) is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12.2 The Inquiry Report submission under sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 17 was to be done within 90 days of the date of issue of SCN i.e. within 90 days from 10-8-2018. However, the Inquiry Report was delayed and only issued beyond the period of 90 days, on 6-12-2018. Hence, there was a delay of 28 days under Regulation 17(5). The proceedings that commenced from 18-5-2018, i.e., the date of receipt of the Offence Report, culminated in the passing of a final order dated 4-2-2019 of cancellation of the customs broker licence of the appellant. 12.3 We would like to state here that the provisions of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 17 were given a complete go-by, by not allowing the customs broker any opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of these proceedings. The Inquiry Officer has declined the cross- examination of the witnesses by the customs broker on an incorrect understanding of Regulation 17(4) of CBLR, 2018. In view of the fact that the appellant is not pressing this question of law, we do not propose to say anything further in this regard." (emphasis supplied) 18. The Delhi High Court, thereafter, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....go Services, the Delhi High Court observed as follows: "16. In Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General) (supra) the Court emphasised the mandatory nature of the CHALR as regards the time limits as under: 6. The time limits in the CHALR, 2004 for issuance of the SCN to the CHA licence holder and completion of the inquiry within 90 days of issuance of such SCN are sacrosanct. The aforesaid time limits were engrafted into Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 by a Notification No. 30/2010-Cus. (N.T.), dated 8th April, 2010. Simultaneously, the CBEC issued Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8 April, 2010 clarifying the procedures governing the suspension and revocation of CHA licence. In para 7.1 of the said Circular, it was noted as under: "7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there 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 Caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eiterated by the Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port/Imports Chennai - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 170 (Mad.) and Commissioner of Customs v. Eltece Associates, 2016 (334) E.L.T. A50 (Mad.)." 7. Recently by an order dated April 24, 2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1734 of 2016 (HLPL Global Logistics P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2016) 40 GSTR 86 (Delhi)) this court reiterated that the time limits in regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013/regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 are sacrosanct. 8. Admittedly, the SCN under the CHALR/CBLR in the present case was issued only on 9th December, 2013, i.e, beyond the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report by the Respondent, i.e., 31st January, 2013. Consequently, all proceedings pursuant thereto are held to be invalid. Further, even the enquiry report was not submitted within a period of 90 days of the issuance of the SCN." 23. In Santon Shipping Services, the Madras High Court observed as follows: "37. That apart, at least in two Judgments of this Court, where a similar issue came up for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all cannot be termed as directory...... Therefore, by a Circular 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010, the necessity to include a time limit for initiating action was addressed by the Board after field inspection and by a notification dated 8-4-2010, amendments prescribing time period for initiating action and completing proceedings was made. The same was given effect by notification dated 20-1-2014. Whereas, under the CBLR, 2013 having found the necessity to prescribe a period, the Central Board, the statutory authority had included the same in the Regulations itself, when they were brought into force. Therefore, when a time limit is prescribed in Regulations, which empowers action under Regulation 18 by following the procedure in Regulation 20(1), the use of the term "shall" cannot be termed as directory. Under such circumstances, the rule can only be termed as mandatory." 41. In view of the aforesaid Judgments, in our opinion, the issue as to whether the limitation prescribed 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 canno....