TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (11) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Entry on behalf of the importer, M/s. Transworld Commercial Enterprises for import of walnut kernels. It was also alleged that the Managing Director of the appellant, i.e. Shri Prashant Dwivedi was also a Managing Partner of the importer. A statement of Shri Prashant Dwivedi was recorded on 26/27.02.2026 and an initial investigation report dated 27.04.2026 was sent to the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, Mumbai, recommending action against the appellant Customs Broker. Accordingly, learned Principal Commissioner of Customs (G) vide the impugned order suspended the licence of the appellant. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Sujit Sahoo, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the first investigation report was received by the respondent on 27.04.2026. The respondent claimed to have received the relied upon documents on 21.08.2026. Learned counsel further submits that a combined reading of the suspension orders dated 31.08.2026 and 16.09.2026 does not disclose which specific material was found in the relied upon documents received on 27.04.2026 to order immediate suspension; the orders also do not speak out as to how the material received by them on 21.08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om.)] (ii) M.D. Ruparel & Sons vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (G) [Final order No. 85521/2025 dated 08.04.2025] (iii) Yash Logisys vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (G) [Final order No. 85727/2022 dated 24.08.2025] (iv) Kailash Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs [Final order No. 40629/2025 dated 19.06.2025] (v) Ratnadip Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai [2019 (370) ELT 1765 (Tri.-Bom.)] (vi) Thiru Rani Logistic Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2019 (365) ELT 856 (Mad.)] (vii) A.M. Ahmed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai [2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.)]. 4. Shri Ashish Sharma, learned Authorised Representative, on the other hand, submits that the Customs Broker actively facilitated and organized the revenue fraud in mis-declaring the origin, the transit and the valuation of the imported walnut kernels and raisins to avail the benefit of duty exemption under SAFTA. He submits that the present appeal by the appellant is premature; under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018, the Commissioner is within his right to issue a formal show cause n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e vide the order dated 31.08.2026 was necessitated. Under the circumstances, we find that no sense of urgency has been shown and substantiated by the respondent authorities in suspending the licence of the Customs Broker vide order dated 31.08.2026. If at all the respondent authorities had reason to believe that the threat/danger to Government revenue would be warded off by suspending the licence of the appellant Customs Broker, they were free to do so within the reasonable period. 7. However, suspension of the licence after 3-4 months of the receipt of the offence report and without showing any urgency is neither explained nor understood. This is not to say that the respondent authorities cannot initiate action to revoke the licence of the appellant by taking appropriate action in time following the procedure laid down under law. We find that suspension of licence in a belated manner, that too a few days before the initiation of enquiry by issuing show cause notice, is neither warrated by the facts of the case nor sustainable legally. We are of the considered opinion that the respondent department has not made out any case for suspension of the licence of the appellant Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sit, is unlawful". 11. We find that the ratio of the aforesaid Judgement is squarely applicable in the instant case. Respectfully adhering to the same, we hold that the time period for issuance of show cause notice prescribed in Regulation 17(1) is mandatory and that in the instant case the Principal Commissioner of Customs, has not issued the show cause notice No.09/2025 dated 17-03- 2025 within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, which is the period of limitation prescribed under Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR 2018. In as much as we have now taken cognizance of the issuance of the said SCN No.09/2025 dated 17-03-2025, we hold that the SCN having been issued beyond the period of limitation, is without jurisdiction and thus being non-est in law, is not maintainable. Having found the consequential proceedings as being without jurisdiction, resultantly, we hold that the proceedings initiated under the impugned order of continued suspension, which is prior to the consequential proceedings under Regulation 17 calling upon the appellant to show cause, does not have an independent continued existence and therefore cannot sustain. Accordingly, we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms or Assistant Commissioner of Customs : Provided that the procedure prescribed in regulation 22 shall not apply in respect of the provisions contained in sub-regulation (2) to regulation 20. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of the written statement from the Customs House Agent, 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 to inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs House Agent. (3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall, in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the inquiry in regard to the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and he may also put any question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs House Agent, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position. (4) The Customs House Agent shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice was allegedly sent to the Chennai Commissionerate also and hence the issuance of the show cause notice by DRI has to be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report. Alternatively, it is contended by the petitioner that at least the date of the Order-in-Original namely 31-1-2011 imposing penalty could have been taken as the date of receipt of offence report, since the same was also communicated to the Chennai Commissionerate. The first respondent has calculated the period of 90 days only from the date of receipt of the prohibition order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin on 6-9-2012. This, according to the petitioner, will not satisfy the requirement of Regulation 22. 16. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is claimed by the respondents that the petitioner was granted licence by the Chennai Customs and that they were operating in Tuticorin Customs. According to the respondents, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Commissioner of Customs at Chennai only by a letter dated 6-9-2012 and hence based upon the same, a show cause notice was issued on 12-11-2012 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence 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 prescribe what an offence report is and how it is to be sent, but they do not also prescribe the person competent to send it. In such circumstances, the interpretation sought to be given by the petitioner is more acceptable. 20. The time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) has to be understood in the context of the strict time schedule prescribed in various portions of the Regulations. Regulation 20(2), for instance, entitles the Commissioner, to suspend the licence of an agent, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. Regulation 22(3) prescribes a time limit of 15 days. Regulation 22(1) prescribes a time limit within which action is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation 22(5). Therefore, considering the fact that the whole proceedings are to be ....