Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (3) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... card was also obtained at Chennai in May 2014. Whileso, certain irregularities were allegedly noticed in the operation of the licensee in their Chennai Branch. Finally on 31.08.2015, Shanmugasundaram was prohibited from operating his customs broker license at Chennai. This was communicated to the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vide communication dated 06.10.2015. Acting on the same, show cause notice dated 11.11.2015 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin under Regulation 20(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 calling upon Shanmugasundram to submit his written explanation as to why the customs broker license issued to him should not be revoked and the securit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant on the ground that it was issued beyond the limitation period of 90 days proscribed in the Regulation. 3. The question that calls for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was right in doing so. 4. It is true that the aforesaid regulation stipulates that the notice should be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report. The expression "offence report" was dealt with by a learned Judge of this Court (Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian as his Lordship then was) in the decision reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 433 (Mad.) (A.M.Ahamed and Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai). Paragraph Nos.17 to 20 of the said judgment read as under:- "17. Unfortunately, the Regulations do n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....failure to comply with the bond conditions (ii) failure to comply with the regulations and (iii) a misconduct, for any of which, the license can be revoked. Since the above regulation does not use the expression "offence report", we have to presume that a report indicating the availability of any one of the above 3 ingredients should be construed as an offence report. Consequently, the date of knowledge gained by the Commissioner, by means of any communication, be it show cause notice or order-in-original, has to be construed as the date of receipt of the offence report. Otherwise, a report about anyone of the above 3 ingredients can be sent at any time, even after five years or ten years. 19. The Regulations not only fail to presc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... then, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was in receipt or was at least in the knowledge of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 02.12.2014. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respondent / writ petitioner has no where averred that the authority who issued show cause notice impugned in the writ petition was cognizant of the show cause notice dated 02.12.2014. 6. In Paragraph No.20 of the decision reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 433 (Mad.) (A.M.Ahamed and Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai), it was specifically mentioned that copy of the show cause notice issued to the writ petitioner therein on 08.05.2010 was marked to the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai. In this c....