Page 242 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

680 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

gy authorities and approval of the Drug Controller, are only required at the time
of clearance of the goods. It is not prescribed in any part of the statute, or regula-
tions framed there-under, that these documents were required to be filed along
with the bill of entry. Admittedly, they were not; but such deficiency was not
illegal and could have been rectified before ‘out of charge’ was granted. The alle-
gation that the appellant did not demonstrate the desired level of diligence and
efficiency is too vague, and lacking in objectivity, for ascertainment without spec-
ificity. Moreover, neither the Inquiry Authority nor the Commissioner of Cus-
toms had taken it up on themselves to scrutinize the documentary and oral evi-
dence for arriving at such a conclusion.
8. Above all, we are concerned that such proceedings should comply
strictly within the time-lines prescribed in law. The failure to do so casts a taint
on the proceedings as one that was either not motivated by public interest or
lacking gravitas expected when depriving a Customs Broker of the means of live-
lihood.
9. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Harjeet Singh Jo-
har v. Commissioner of Customs (General) [2018 (361) ELT 731 (Del.)] holding that
‘15. In view of the aforesaid position, we record that the suspension order
dated 31-3-2017 was based upon the offence report, and therefore the show
cause notice under Regulation 20, dated 14-7-2017, would be clearly barred
by the limitation as it was issued more than 90 days after the offence report
was submitted.
16. We accordingly allow the present writ petition and quash the show
cause notice dated 14-7-2017 initiating proceedings under Regulation 20 of
the 2013 Regulations, as it has been issued after 90 days from the date of re-
ceipt of offence report. The order confirming suspension dated 12-6-2017
would therefore become ineffective and infructuous.’
is germane to the present dispute.
10. As submitted by Learned Consultant, the starting point for revoca-
tion proceedings, under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, is the
receipt of offence report intended to bring breaches to the knowledge of the li-
censing authority. We see from the records that, as early as 6th April, 2017, the
Tughlakabad Inland Container Depot Commissionerate had drawn the attention
of Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), Delhi to the suspect import. It
would appear from the letter dated 24th April, 2018 of the latter to the former
that repeated reminders did not elicit the facts required to justify initiation of
proceedings under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. It would also
appear that it was only the show cause notice issued to the appellant herein, as
well as the importer, under Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 which provided the
respondent herein with the material to come to a conclusion that the proceedings
were justified. We take note that the said show cause notice preceded the com-
mencement of inquiry by more than a year. Even though attempted to be justi-
fied with the explanation that the said notice was received at the office of the re-
spondent only on 6th August 2018, we are unable to concur as the only addition
thereto is a covering letter. Owing to the existence of prior intimation the notice
is also an untenable alternative as the trigger that is the express requirement for
commencement of proceedings under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation,
2018. Hence, the show cause notice, even if accepted as ‘offence report’, cannot be
considered as the point at which proceedings should have been commenced. On

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  242