Balraj Kumar vs C.C.(Import And General), New Delhi

Heard Shri B.K. Singh, Id. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ranjan Khanna, Id. A.R. representing the respondent/Revenue.

The appellant is a licenced Customs Broker. He is aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2015 passed by the Id. Commissioner of Customs (General),

New Custom House, New Delhi. The impugned order revoked appellant's Customs Broker licence and forfeited security deposit of Rs.75,000/-

furnished by him.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenges the impugned order on several grounds including that the order is invalid for transgression of time limits

prescribed in Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. After hearing the respective, since the challenge to the impugned

order is primarily on the ground of of violation of time limit prescribed in Regulation 20, appears to have been made out, we refrain from going into

other contentions urged on behalf of the appellants, viz., challenge to the impugned order, on merits of the decision, to revoke the licence and forfeit

the deposit.

The facts in so far as are relevant and material for purposes of considering whether the limit of time prescribed under Regulation 20 were

transgressed , are noted .

In para 2 of the show cause notice dated 21.7.2014, qua which proceedings were initiated against the appellant culminating in the impugned order, it

is clearly asserted that proceedings were initiated for revocation of the licence on the basis of the show cause notice issued by the Additional Director

General , DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit dated 24.12.2013, received by the respondent on 24.2.2014 along with the enclosure to the letter dated 13.2.2014

addressed by the authority which had issued the show cause notice dated 24.12.2013. This constitutes information as to the alleged delinquency of the

appellant, the offence report.

Appellant's licence was suspended on 18.3.2014, a fact no longer relevant, since by the impugned order, the appellant's licence stands revoked.

Regulation 20(2) mandates that a notice setting out grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the Customs Broker licence should be issued within 90

days from the date of receipt of the offence report. However, the show cause notice dated 21.7.2014 was issued beyond the period of 90 days from

24.12.2014, the date the offence report was received by the respondent. Regulation 20(5) mandates that At the conclusion of the inquiry, the enquiry

authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording his finding thereon submit the report within a period of 90 days from the date of issue

of a notice under Regulation 20(1). However, dthe inquiry report was submitted on 27.11.2014, clearly beyond the period prescribed in Regulation

20(5). Regulation 20(7) ordains that the Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if

any, made by the Customs Broker, pass such orders as he deems fit either revoking the suspension of the licence or revoking the licence of the

Customs Broker or imposing penalty not exceeding the amount of mention in Regulation 22 within 90 days from the date of submission of the report by

the enquiry authority under Regulation 20(5). The impugned order was passed on 27.2.2015, beyond the period of 90 days from the date of enquiry

report.

The Hon'ble Delhi High in Shankar Clearing & Forwarding vs. C.C. (Import & General) - 2012 (283) ELT 349 (Del.,) the Hon'ble Madras High

Court in Sanco Trans Ld. v. C.C., Sea Port/Imports, Chennai - 2015 (322) ELT 170 (Mad.,) this Tribunal in Rajeev Mayaer vs. C.C. (Import &

Genral), New Delhi - 2014 (308) ELT 146 (Tri-Del.), in Om Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C. (General), Mumbai - 2014 (311) ELT 793 (Tri-

Mumbai) and in Sri Radhakrishna Shipping (P) Ltd. vs. C.C. (General), Mumbai - 2015 (318) ELT 660 (Tri-Mumbai) have uniformly held that if any

of the intermediary steps such as such issue of show cause notice , drawing up of an inquiry report, or passing of a revocation order is beyond the

periods mandated under Regulation 20 of the 2013 Licensing Regulations, corresponding to Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing

Regulation, 2004 as amended in 2010, the eventual order of revocation would be invalid.

For aforesaid reasons and on the preceding analyses, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The appeal is allowed but

in the circumstances without costs.