Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. V K M Logistics vs Commissioner Of Customs on 6 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Customs Appeal No. 52749 of 2015
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 42/NK/Policy/2015 dated 20.03.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import and General) New Delhi ]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. 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?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. V K M Logistics Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs Respondent
(Gen), New Delhi Appearance:
Shri K K Jha and Shri B K Singh, Advocates for the Appellants
Shri R K Garg, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing/ Decision: 06.04.2016
FINAL ORDER NO .51286 /2016
Per B Ravichandran:
Appellant challenges the revocation of his CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs (Import and General), New Delhi vide his order dated 20.3.2015. The revocation is mainly on the ground that the appellant have failed to discharge their obligations as stipulated under Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013. Failure to discharge their obligations resulted in export of red sanders by illegal acts of the exporters.
2. The appellants pleaded that none of the consignments handled by them have been intercepted and found to contain any prohibited items. The allegation of illicit export by exporter is based on statements. Further, it was submitted that they have filed shipping bills based on documents containing details of exporters and export consignments. It was strongly pleaded that apart from merit the whole proceedings against them is without jurisdiction as the prescribed time limits in terms of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 have not been followed. The revocation of license is sought to be set aside on this ground alone.
3. The learned AR contested the appeal and submitted the appellant failed in their obligations of verifying the antecedents and identity of the exporter and their acts amount to facilitating illegal export of red sanders.
4. We have heard both the sides. We find without even going to the merits of the case it is clear that the time limits prescribed in the Regulations (CBLR, 2013) have not been followed in this case. The original authoritys finding that regarding delay in issuing the show cause notice is not factually correct. He considered receipt of DRI show cause notice as receipt of offence report. We find Commissioners of Customs (General), NCH, Mumbai in his order dated 6.11.2013 prohibiting the appellant from working in all sections of Mumbai Customs Zone, records that he is forwarding the case to Delhi Customs for necessary action under CBLR, 2013. He also mentions that an offence report has been received in his office on 29.10.2013 from DRI, MZU. It is also a fact that the license of the appellant was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs (Import and General) on 27.11.2013 and on 18.2.2014 the said order of suspension was confirmed. On appeal the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 53886/2014 dated 29.9.14 set aside the suspension on the ground of non-adherence to time limit as per Regulation 20(3) of CHALR, 2004.
5. With the above factual background it is clear that the show cause notice under CBLR, 2013 has not been issued within 90 days of receipt of offence report. Further, we also note that the enquiry report dated 24.12.14 was also made much beyond the 90 days limit after the issue of show cause notice. The impugned order dated 20.3.15 was issued much after 7 months of issue of show cause notice. Considering all these facts, we find that the impugned order passed in violation of time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013 cannot be sustained. Reference is also made to the decisions of Honble Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. [ 2015 (322) ELT 170 (MAD), A. M, Ahamed & Co. [2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad)] and Final Order No. 53827/2015 dated 23.12.2015 of Tribunal in Balraj Kumar vs. CC (Import and General), New Delhi.
6. In view of the above analysis, we hold that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Accordingly the same is set aside and appeal is allowed.
(operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( B Ravichandran )
Member(Technical)
ss
4