Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
P.I. Logistics (India) P. Ltd vs C.C. (General), New Delhi on 26 July, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing:20.7.2016 Date of pronouncement : 26 / 07/2016 Customs Appeal No.52768 of 2015 Customs Appeal No.52557 of 2015 Arising out of the order in original No.69/NK/Policy/2015 dated 9.5.2015 and No.56/NK/Conformation/Policy/15 dated 16.4.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, IGI Airport, New Delhi. For Approval and Signature: Honble Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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 P.I. Logistics (India) P. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. C.C. (General), New Delhi . Respondent
Present Shri G.K. Sarkar with Shri Prashant Srivastava, Advocates for the appellants Present Shri S.K. Sheorin, A.R. for Revenue Coram: Honble Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Final Order No.52556 52557/2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
The appellant is a Custom House Agent licensed to process clearance of cargo through Customs. In connection with export documentation work undertaken in respect of 5 exporters, the licensing authority - Commissioner of Customs (General), Airport, new Delhi entertained a view that the appellant has violated certain provisions of Regulation 11 of Customs Broker Licence Regulation, 2013 (CRBLR) and accordingly suspended the licence of the appellant. The suspension ordered on 16.4.2015 was confirmed by him by another order dated 9.5.2015 which is challenged in the present appeal by the appellant.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant assailed the order on various grounds on merits as well as on non-adherence of time limit prescribed under CBLR. He submitted that the action of the licensing authority is not legally sustainable on the preliminary ground of violation of the time limits prescribed under CBLR. It is his case that the DRI furnished offence report to the licensing authorioty on 8.4.2015 wherein the alleged role of the appellant in the overvaluation export consignments was reported. The licensing authority suspended the appellants licence on 16.4.2015 and confirmed the same by the impugned order dated 9.5.2015. However, the show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, which has to be issued within 90 days of receipt of offence report, was issued only on 2.2.2016 i.e. after almost 300 days. Further, the enquiry as ordered by the licensing authority was completed and the report was submitted only on 27.5.2016 in clear violation of Regulation 20(5) which prescribes that enquiry report should be submitted within 90 days of issue of notice under Regulation 20(1). Enquiry report was submitted after 115 days. Ld. Counsel also submitted that in the enquiry report the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the appellant had not contravened any of the Regulations and are not liable to action under CBLR, 2013. Learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of suspension.
3. Ld. A.R. for Revenue supported the finding of suspension ordered by the licensing authority. The final outcome under Regulation 20 is yet to be decided by the licensing authority.
4. We have heard both sides and examined the case records. Though in the appeal, the appellant elaborately contested the appeal on merits, Ld. Counsel during argument specifically submitted that he order will not stand on the preliminary legal issue of violation of various prescribed time limits for action under CBLR. We find that suspension was ordered on 16.4.2015 and the same was confirmed on 9.5.2015. However, neither the show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) nor enquiry report under Regulation 20(5) were issued/completed within stipulated time of 90 days each. The show cause notice was issued after 300 days and the enquiry report was submitted after 115 days of the show cause notice. This is in clear violation of the statutory time limit prescribed under Regulation 20. It is well settled legal position that the authorities to act under CBLR should adhere to the mandatory time limit prescribed and failure to do so will make the action of the authorities devoid of legal jurisdiction. The Honble Madras High Court in Saro International Freight Systems vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2016 (334) ELT 289 (Mad), after examining the issue in detail, held that time limit prescribed under CBLR are mandatory and non-adherence of the same will make action invalid. The ratio has been followed in various decisions of the Tribunal also. One such recent decision is in Ambika Enterprises 2016 TIOL 1720 CESTAT Delhi.
5. In view of the settled position as discussed above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
6. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is another appeal by the appellant against the first order dated 16.4.2015 of immediate suspension of licence. The said appeal No.C/52557/2015-Cus(DB) can also be linked with this appeal as both are against the suspension of licence in the same case. Accordingly, registry has been directed to link up this appeal . On perusal, we find that the said appeal against immediate suspension of licence has now become infractuous in view of our finding on the confirmation of suspension as above in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infractuous .
(Pronounced in the open Court on 26/07/2016).
(Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member scd/ 2