Page 154 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

336 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Point - (v)
56. In Md. Yeasin (supra), the concerned ration dealer’s license was sus-
pended on January 19, 2005. In the meanwhile, however, proceedings were initi-
ated under clause 21 of the relevant control order by issuance of show cause no-
tice dated November 23, 2004, but the same were not concluded within the time-
limit of three months from date of service of notice. In paragraph 40 it was ob-
served that “suspension of the dealer causes great inconvenience and hardship as
the dealer is thrown out of business without any subsistence during the suspen-
sion period”, so “the period of 3 months should be considered as mandatory so
far as the continuance of suspension in connection with the proceeding is con-
cerned”. Ultimately, it was held that “suspension of the dealer in connection with
such proceedings must come to an end after a period of 3 months if within that
period the proceedings are not completed”.
57. It would appear from sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 20 that after
a show cause notice is issued thereunder, the Customs broker proceeded against
would have to be given thirty days to submit its written statement of defence. An
enquiry would follow, and the enquiry officer is required under sub-regulation
(5) to submit his report after complying with basically the rules of natural justice
and fair play, within ninety days of issuance of the show cause notice under sub-
regulation (1). Sub-regulation (6) ordains that the Customs broker has to be given
at least thirty days to respond to the report of enquiry. A period of ninety days
from date of submission of enquiry report is stipulated in sub-regulation (7) for a
final order of the nature mentioned therein to be passed by the principal com-
missioner or the commissioner, as the case may be.
58. The first petitioner is yet to respond to the show cause notice. In
fact, its interest was protected by an interim order passed by this Bench on Au-
gust 12, 2016. The time to complete the proceedings is still few months away. The
reasoning on which suspension was directed to be revoked in Md. Yeasin (supra)
is not available to be adopted here, in view of the distinct facts and circumstanc-
es. If at all the proceedings for revocation are not completed within the time-limit
stipulated in sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 20, the petitioners may approach
the Court afresh for revocation of the order of suspension dated May 31, 2016.
But for the present, they are not entitled to the relief of revocation of the order of
suspension.
59. This point too is answered against the petitioners.
60. The writ petition stands dismissed, without costs. Interim order
stands vacated. The petitioners are given fifteen days to respond to the show
cause notice dated July 18, 2016, whereafter proceedings may be continued in
accordance with law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order,
if applied for, shall be furnished to the applicant at an early date.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  154