Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, New Delhi (I&G) vs M/S R.U. Import Export Pvt. Ltd on 1 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. I DATE OF HEARING : 27/07/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 01/08/2016. Customs Appeal No. 2382 of 2012 with Misc. Application No. 54137 of 2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 09/Policy/VKG/2012 dated 21/05/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President 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 would 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 : Department Authorities? CC, New Delhi (I&G) Appellant Versus M/s R.U. Import Export Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the appellant.
Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52758/2016 Dated : 01/08/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
The appeal by the Revenue is against order dated 21/5/2012 of Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi. In the said order the Commissioner revoked the suspension order dated 25/9/2009 issued against the respondent, Custom House Agent. However, he ordered forfeiture of Rs. 50,000/- security deposit and recorded a warning to the respondent to be careful in future while dealing with customs clearance work. The Department is aggrieved by this order mainly on the ground that when the respondent was not completely exonerated of all the charges, the Licensing Authority should have revoked the lincence of the respondent. The role of Shri Mool Chand Sharma, Director of the respondent company in the improper importation of foreign made liquor has been brought out in the investigation and as such the Adjudicating Authority should have taken note of serious nature of offence committed by the Director of the company and should have ordered for revocation of License instead of simply forfeiting an amount of Rs. 50,000/- only.
2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that based on certain investigations conducted by the officers of DRI regarding illicit import of foreign liquor declared as food stuff in ICD, Tughlakabad, proceedings were initiated against the importers as well as the respondent who acted as a customs house agent w.r.t. the mis-declared consignment. Proceedings under Customs Act resulted in final adjudication by the Commissioner, ICD, Tughlakabad in which he found both the respondent and the Director of respondent company Shri Mool Chand Sharma liable for penalty and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- each on both of them. He also imposed additional penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- on Shri Mool Chand Sharma. The appeal proceedings against the said order issued under Customs Act are reportedly pending in Tribunal. Simultaneously, proceedings were initiated against the respondent in terms of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 for revocation of License. The said proceedings concluded by the impugned order wherein the Licensing Authority ordered forfeiture of Rs. 50,000/- security deposit. He, however, revoked the suspension of respondents License. The only ground on which the Revenue is before us is that the offence under Customs Act is grave and the respondent CHA company is liable for stricter action, namely revocation of their License. The learned AR also in his detailed submission emphasized on the gravity of the offence with which the respondent is connected.
3. We find that though the respondent did not file any appeal against the impugned order, in the written submission filed to counter the Revenues appeal, they have pleaded mainly on the legal issues. We note that the present proceedings culminating in the impugned order were not initiated or completed within the statutory time limits prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. The offence report was on 04/6/09; show cause notice was issued on 19/1/11; the enquiry report was submitted on 6/6/11 and the impugned order was passed on 18/5/12. Clearly the time limit of 90 days each, for issuing notice, thereafter to submit enquiry report and to finally issue the order has not been followed in this case. We agree with the plea of the respondent in placing reliance on the various decided cases to hold that the statutory time limit prescribed under the Regulation are to be strictly followed, failure of which will make the proceedings invalid. Reference can be made to the decision of Honble Delhi High Court in Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 TIOL 1111 HC DEL CUS; S.K. Logistics 2016 TIOL 845 HC DEL CUS and Atharva Global Logistics 2016 TIOL 1072 HC DEL CUS; Honble Madras High Court in the matter of A.M. Ahmed & Co. 2014 (309) E.L.T. 433 (Mad.); Sanco Trans Ltd. 2015 TIOL 1524 HC MAD CUS and Saro International Freight 2015 TIOL 2916 HC MAD CUS; and this Tribunal in the matters of Lohia Travels 2016 (331) E.L.T. 614 (Tri. Del.); Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (329) E.L.T. 269 (Tri.); Shiva Khurana Final order No. C/A/51367-51368/2016 CU (DB) dated 21/04/2016; and Vinod Tomar Final Order No. C/A/ 52107/2016 CU (DB) dated 08/06/2016. Honble Delhi High Court in a recent decision on 20/07/2016 in Overseas Air Cargo Services 2016 TIOL 1531 HC DEL CUS reiterated the mandatory nature of the time limits.
4. We find in view of the above legal position, as the proceedings were vitiated due to non-adherence of statutory time limits, the question of enhancing the penal action upon conclusion of such proceedings is not legally tenable. Hence, the appeal by the Revenue is rejected. The miscellaneous application for early hearing filed by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 01/08/2016.) (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
5