M/S. Sark International vs Cc (Port Import), Chennai on 3 September, 2013
20. The time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) has to be understood in the context of the strict time schedule prescribed in various portions of the Regulations. Regulation 20(2), for instance, entitles the Commissioner, to suspend the licence of an agent, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. Regulation 22 (3) prescribes a time limit of 15 days. Regulation 22(1) prescribes a time limit within which action is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation 22 (5). Therefore, considering the fact that the whole proceedings are to be commenced within a time limit and also concluded within a time frame, I am of the view that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 8.5.2010 with a copy marked to the first respondent should be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report. Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date. If so calculated, the impugned proceedings have obviously been initiated beyond the period of 90 days.
Hon'ble Madras High Court has further emphasised the observance of time limits strictly under the CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013 in the case of Saro International Freight System Vs. CC, Chennai [2016 (334) ELT 289 (Mad.)]. The Hon'ble High Court in para 28 of the above judgement has held as under:-