Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Global Marine Agencies vs Cc, Jaipur-I on 13 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:13.04.2016
Customs Appeal NO.59936/2013-CU(DB)
& Misc. Application No.51789/2015
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.09/2013 Commr of Customs dated 27.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur]
For Approval and Signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Global Marine Agencies Appellant
Vs.
CC, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance: Rep. by Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri K. Poddar, DR for the respondent.
Coram : Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 51295/2016 /Dated:13.4.2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
The present appeal is against order dated 27.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur cancelling licence of the appellant. The appellant is a licensed Customs House Agent attending to the work of customs clearance of cargo at various places. Based on certain intelligences inquiries were conducted by the Customs Authorities with reference to two shipping bills filed by an exporter of Inorganic Chemical through Pipavav Port. The shipping bills for the export were filed through the appellant. On examination, the goods were found to be Muriate of Potash (MOP) instead of Cobalt Sulphate as declared in the shipping bills. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for violation of the provisions of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation , 2004. The licence was suspended on 17.06.2011, the suspension was confirmed on 26.07.2011. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 9.8.2012 directed the Original Authority to adjudicate the case after issue of show cause notice. A show cause notice was issued on 11.10.2012. Inquiry report was submitted on 26.03.2013. The impugned order dated 27.06.2013 was issued cancelling the licence of the appellant. The main allegations considered by the Original Authority are that the appellant sublet their licence to another person; failed to advice the client to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962; failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information given to the client; failed to verify the identity the antecedents of the client; did not exercise proper control on the employees involved in business transactions
2. Ld. Counsel though contended that the cancellation of appellants licence is not sustainable on merits, raised a major preliminary objection against the legality of the impugned order on the ground that the proceedings are in violation of the time limits prescribed under CHALR 2004/CBLR, 2013. He pleaded that on non-adherence of time schedule as prescribed in the Regulation, the proceedings resulting in the impugned order are without legal jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside only on this limited legal issue.
3. Ld. AR opposed the plea of the appellant and submitted that the show cause notice has been issued on 11.10.2012 in terms of the Tribunals Final Order dated 9.8.2012. Various violations of the Regulations have been clearly brought out in the impugned order and as such, he pleaded that the present appeal is without merit.
4. We have heard both the sides and examined appeal records.
5. Before examining the merit of the impugned order, we have considered the plea of the appellant that the various statutory time limits prescribed have not been followed in the proceedings, which resulted in the cancellation of the licence. We find that the licensing authority was informed of the offence vide order received on 31.05.2011. The licence was suspended on 17.06.2011 which was confirmed on 26.07.2011. A show cause notice was issued on 11.10.2012. Such notice has been issued after more than 16 months of offence report, that too after the intervention of the Tribunal. Even after issue of such show cause notice, the inquiry report was not submitted within 90 days as required by the provisions of Regulation 22(5) of CHALR 2004 Regulation 20(5) of CBLR 2013. Even the impugned order dated 27.06.2013 was issued to the appellant on 3.7.2013 beyond the period of 90 days of submission of inquiry report. We find that the Tribunal as well as Honble High Courts held that the time limit prescribed under the CHALR/CBLR are to be strictly adhered to. Delay in proceedings, in any stage, will have a bearing on the legality of the proceedings. In Sanco Trans Ltd. 2015 (322) ELT 170 (Madras), the Honble Madras High Court held that the show cause notice should be issued within the period stipulated under the Regulations. Notice issued beyond the time limit cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction. Similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in Eltece Associates 2016 (334) ELT 124 (Tribunal-Chennai). In S.K. Logistics - 2016 (331) ELT 486 (Tribunal-Delhi), it was held that the time limits prescribed for submission of inquiry report are to be followed.
6. In view of the above position, we find that the order of cancellation of licence issued without following the prescribed time limits cannot be legally sustained. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Miscellaneous petition also gets disposed of.
[operative portion already pronounced in open court] ( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( B. Ravichandran ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1