Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard Dr. S.Krishnandh learned counsel appearing for Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan learned Senior Panel counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner was issued a Customs Broker licence under the Customs House Agent Licence Regulation, 2004,(CHALR), has filed this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandmaus, to quash the order-in-original, dated 11.06.2015, passed by the respondent, in and by which, the respondent in exercise of powers conferred under the provision of Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2013 (CBLR), revoked the licence granted to the petitioner and ordered forfeiture of the full amount of security deposit furnished by the petitioner.

8. As only two contentions were raised by the petitioner, as mentioned, this Court examined the correctness of the impugned proceedings only on two grounds, which have been urged before the Court namely on the ground of limitation and non-service of notices and orders on the petitioner. With regard to the plea of limitation, the respondent would submit that the case of the petitioner is that the time frame specified in Regulation 20 of the CBLR has not been adhered to, for which the respondent would submit that the offence was committed in March 2013 and the relevant regulation in force at that point of time was CHALR and CBLR, 2013, came into force only from 21.06.2013.

9. In terms of Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, the respondent was empowered to suspend the licences were inquiry against the petitioner is pending or contemplated. The petitioner's licence was suspended invoking the power under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004, after which the inquiry was conducted. Referring to Regulation 22 of the CHALR, it is submitted by the respondents that the said Regulation stipulates the procedure for suspending or revoking licence under Regulation 20 and Regulation 22 of the CHALR does not specify any time limit of 90 days for issuance of show cause notice and Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR provided for granting time of not less than 45 days to the Customs House Agent to submit written statement of defence. Thus, the respondent would contend that proceedings against the petitioner commenced, when CHALR was in force, which did not stipulate any time limit for revoking the licence under Regulation 22. It is further submitted that when CBLR was notified in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in super session of the CHALR, an exception was carved out in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such super-session. Therefore, it is submitted that the 2013 CBLR will apply to all cases except in respect of things done under CHALR before super-session of CHALR and in the present case proceedings for suspension or revocation were initiated under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. Therefore, the impugned proceedings being in continuation of the proceedings initiated under CHALR is valid and not barred by limitation.

14.Regulation 22 deals with the procedure to be followed, while suspending or revoking the license under Regulation 20. On a plain reading of the said provision shows that there is no time limit prescribed within which orders have to be passed by the Commissioner nor there is any cut off time prescribed so as to invalidate any action done. The sheet anchor of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2013 [which came into effect from 21.06.2013], under Regulation 20(1) therein, prescribes a time limit within which notice should be issued and the time within which inquiry has to be completed, report to be submitted and the time within which action has to be initiated. Thus, by applying the said Regulation 20 of the CBLR, it is submitted that the entire proceedings are vitiated. However, the most important aspect which has to be taken note is that while notifying CBLR vide notification dated 21.06.2013 it was stated that the same has been made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in super-session of CHALR, 2004, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such super-session. Thus, what has been saved while invoking CBLR are actions which have been done or omitted to be done before the super-session of the CHALR by notification dated 21.06.2013. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the regulation CBLR should be applied to the petitioner's case and the Court should intervene at this stage and set aside the order in original without relegating the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal does not merit consideration. The petitioner cannot dispute the fact that the CHALR does not prescribe any time limit for action being initiated and their contention is solely based upon the new Regulations CBLR, 2013, which is inapplicable.