Page 156 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

690 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

CASES CITED
Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (332) E.L.T. 300 (Mad.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 5]
Patriot Freight Logistics System v. Commissioner — 2017 (350) E.L.T. 59 (Mad.) — Relied on .... [Para 5]
Santon Shipping Services v. Commissioner — C.M.A. No. 730 of 2016, decided on 13-10-2017
by Madras High Court — Relied on .............................................................................................. [Para 5]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.K. Jayaraj, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order (Common)]. - By this common order, both the writ petitions are
being disposed.
2. The petitioner was issued with the Customs Broker license on 2-5-
2014. By an order dated 9-6-2015, the petitioner’s license was suspended under
Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. The reason
for suspending the aforesaid license of the petitioner was on account of certain
irregularities attributed to the petitioner due to alleged forgery by staff of the
petitioner of the signature of the clerk of the Container Freight Station pursuant
to a complaint by the custodian of the imported goods namely M/s. German Ex-
press Shipping Agency. It appears there was also an admission of forgery by the
staff of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide impugned Order-in-Original No.
39410/2015, dated 2-7-2015, the order of suspension dated 9-6-2015 was contin-
ued until further orders.
3. The 1st respondent has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner
dated 7-7-2015 (impugned in W.P. No. 38434 of 2015). The respondent has in-
voked the powers vested with under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Li-
censing Regulations, 2013 while issuing the impugned notice dated 7-7-2015.
4. The petitioner has thus challenged both the impugned orders sus-
pending the license and the notice issued to revoke the license under Regulation
20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 in these writ petitions.
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Regulation 20
contemplates initiation of proceedings within 90 days from the date of receipt of
offence report. In this case, the respondent have admitted that the offence report
dated 18-2-2015 was received on 23-2-2015. He therefore submits that as per deci-
sions of this Court rendered in “Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Case” [2016 (332)
E.L.T. 300 (Mad.)] by an order dated 27-10-2015 in a batch of writ petitions and
the decision of the Learned Single Judge in “Patriot Freight Logistics Systems v.
Commissioner of Customs, 2017 (350) E.L.T. 59 and a decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in C.M.A. No. 730 of 2016 in “Santon Shipping Services v. Commis-
sioner of Customs” passed on 13-10-2017, the impugned notice dated 7-7-2015
(impugned in W.P. No. 38434 of 2015) was liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submits the pe-
riod of 90 days in Regulation 20 is only directory and not mandatory and there-
fore, there is no reason to quash the impugned order and the due notice.
7. I have considered the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the peti-
tioner and the respondents. The issue is squarely covered by the above decision
of this Court cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the im-
pugned notice dated 7-7-2015 (impugned in W.P. No. 38434 of 2015) is liable to
be quashed.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  156