Page 153 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] ASIAN FREIGHT v. PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION) 335

2003 requiring completion of proceedings within three months from date of ser-
vice of notice asking for explanation from the delinquent dealer, was held not to
be mandatory on a survey of various authorities by Hon’ble Asok Kumar Gangu-
ly, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench. Paragraph 25 of
the decision being important, is reproduced below :
“25. But the provision is silent as to what will happen if the proceedings
are not completed within a period of 3 months. It is well-settled that where
a statute provides for consequences for non-compliance with a time-limit,
in such cases it has been held that the time fixed is mandatory in character.
The relevant provision of Clause 21 does not disclose any such intention.
This is a feature which inclines the Court to hold the time of 3 months is not
mandatory.”
51. This Bench thus doubts as to whether the three decisions of the
Madras High Court relied on by Mr. Saraf lay down correct law, and holds the
time-limit in Regulation 20(1) as not mandatory, and that any proceeding for
revocation of a Customs Broker’s license beyond ninety days of receipt of offence
report would not per se stand invalidated by mere reason of such belated initia-
tion.
52. The legal position apart, this Bench is also of the considered view
upon consideration of the factual aspect that the proceedings have in fact been
initiated within ninety days of receipt of the offence report by the first respond-
ent.
53. The offence report was received by the correspondence department
of the first respondent on April 19, 2016 and it took a couple of days’ time to
reach the first respondent’s office. In fact, the report was received by him on
April 22, 2016. The impugned notice to show cause in connection with revocation
proceedings was issued on July 18, 2016, dispatched on July 20, 2016 and re-
ceived by the petitioner on July 21, 2016. Mr. Saraf has contended, relying on the
decisions in Kanti Tarafdar (supra) and Rajesh Kumar Jain (supra) that it is not
enough for the notice to be issued within ninety days, but it must reach the no-
ticee, also within ninety days. Alternatively, it has been contended that the notice
must be tendered for service or dispatched by post within ninety days, as or-
dained by Section 153 of the Customs Act.
54. The contents of the affidavit of the first respondent have not been
disputed by Mr. Saraf, except for inviting the notice of the Bench to some slip-
shod drafting of a part of paragraph 4 thereof. However, that the first respondent
received the offence report on April 22, 2016 is amply proved from the annexures
to such affidavit. It is well-known that in Government offices, very often a file
moves at a snail’s pace while passing through various tables. It is, therefore, not
difficult to think of circumstances disabling transmission of the offence report to
the first respondent on the same date it was received by the correspondence de-
partment. Regulation 20(1) has to be reasonably construed and so construed, the
time-limit of ninety days must be held to commence from the date the offence
report reaches the principal commissioner or the commissioner of customs, as the
case may be, authorized to issue show cause notice.
55. In view of the foregoing discussion, this point is answered against
the petitioners.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  153