TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad filed bill of entry no. 3830116/25.122022, 3830216/25.12.2022 and 3830343/25.12.2022 for the import of 'LED lamp, torch light with charger' which, upon examination, was found to be non-compliant with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) requirement and, consequently, demonstrated lack of compliance with the said obligations in the Regulations leading to the proceedings. 3. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 13th March 2023 under regulation 17 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 following which enquiry authority submitted its report on the 26th December 2023. The said enquiry report was accepted by the licensing authority and the detriments supra came to be fastened on them on 29th April 2024. 4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorized Representative. 5. It is seen from the records of proceedings that the enquiry authority appointed by the licensing authority was none other than the official who investigated the offence under Customs Act, 1962 and which was, therefore, prejudicial to propriety and principles of natural justice that should attended upon the proceedings. We find that there has been elapse of more than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibility. The said judgment of the CESTAT reflects a extreme situation and the data which was placed before the Tribunal revealed that inquiries had been pending for more than five years and in this backdrop, the Tribunal commented about the inordinate delay. This is what precisely is to be avoided. The order passed by the CESTAT cannot be said to be erroneous by taking into consideration the enormous delay, reflecting the attitude of the Revenue, which had failed to discharge its duty, causing serious inconvenience to the Customs House Agent, which in any cannot be justified. However, the said principle cannot be accepted as an absolute principle where the delay of 15 days has also been held to be inordinate and the licence came to be restored. We do not propose to deal with these two extremities since we are of the considered view that the midline has to be drawn where the time line may not be construed as so rigid, inflexible and a reasonable deviation is permissible where delay is accounted for and the Revenue would be made accountable in discharge of its statutory duty. The principle, which is to be applied to construe whether the Regulation is directory or ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. The salutary principle, whether statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner and time within which the duty shall be performed, the injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescription, is a relevant factor for holding such provision only as directory has been completely overlooked. As observed by Justice Denman in Caldow v. Pixell (1877) 2 CPD 562, "in considering whether the statute is imperative, the balance may be struck between inconvenience or sometime rigidly adhered to, or sometime departure from this direction". In that case, it was held that where a public officer was directed by statute to perform a duty within a specific time the case is established that the provisions are only directory, as already discussed above. There might be reason why such time limits cannot be adhered to and these reasons may be at times attributable to the revenue and some time to the Customs house agent. Strict adherence to the said time limit and not making it even slightly flexible would warrant a situation where even one day deviation from the time line would be equally fatal as a delay of one year. This surely is not the intention in fram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 timelimit 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 timelimit 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 line prescribed in the Regulation, is "reasonable". This is the only way by which the provisions contained in Regulation 20 can be effectively implemented in the interest of both parties, namely, the Revenue and the Customs House Agent. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Revenue succeed and the question of law framed in ....