Cus - Inordinate delay in processing actions under CBLR, 2013 - Nefarious Customs brokers, who ought to be punished, get benefit of lapses committed on account of delays and which is bad for system: CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, JULY 29, 2016: AGAINST revocation of Customs Brokers licence,the appellant is before the CESTAT.
It is submitted that there are regulations prescribing time limits for conduct of various activities by Revenue for such actions and those time limits are prescribed by amendment made in the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) vide Notification No. 30/2010-Cus (NT) dated 8.4.2010; Circular No. 9/2010 dated 8.4.2010; Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR)& since there has been inordinate delay in the processes (as tabulated below), therefore, the order is not sustainable.
|
Sr. No.
|
Event
|
Date of occurrence
|
Prescribed date
|
Regulation 22
|
Delay
|
|
1
|
Bill of Entry
|
23.09.2010
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Show-cause notice
|
21.04.2011
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Intimation to Commissioner of Customs (Gen)
|
07.07.2011
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Suspension of License
|
03.08.2011
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Confirmation of suspension
|
17.08.2011
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Notice under CHALR
|
14.10.2011
|
5.10.2011
|
The Commissioner of Customs (G) is required to issue the notice within 90 days of receipt of offence report
|
9 days
|
|
7.
|
Presenting Officer's brief
|
06.02.2015
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Submissions
|
29.04.2015
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Inquiry Officer's report
|
10.06.2015
|
12.01.2012
|
Inquiry Officer's report is required to be submitted within 90 days from issuance of Notice
|
1335 days
|
|
10.
|
Submissions
|
22.07.2015
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Order
|
06.08.2015
|
|
|
|
| |
|
1491 days
|
270 days
|
Therefore total delay =
|
1221 days
|
The Bench while adverting to the decision in Lohia Travels and Cargo – 2015-TIOL-2467-CESTAT-DEL observed that the total time prescribed as per law for completing the process is 270 days and there is no procedure for extension of time prescribed under the said Regulations. However, in the present case, there was inordinate delay of about 3 to 4 years in processing the actions in CBLR, 2013 and CHALR, 2004 and which made it apparent that time limits prescribed in the law and instructions had not been adhered to.
The CESTAT further observed that it had called for data from the Revenue in the case of Skylark Travel Pvt. Ltd. 2016-TIOL-801-CESTAT-MUM to ascertain if delays are regular or exceptional but the same was not forthcoming.
The Bench, therefore, sought to understand whether the present case was an exceptional case or such delays were happening as a matter of routine in total disregard of Regulation and CBE & C instructions.
The CESTAT, therefore, held –
"…There is an obvious resistance to providing the data. This creates a suspicion. It is obvious that some Customs Brokers suffer on account of such delays and some get benefit on account of such delays. Some custom broker, who have not committed any serious fraud and who ought not to be punished, get out of work for long periods during which the proceeding are delayed. On the other hand, the nefarious custom brokers, who ought to be punished, get the benefit of the lapses committed on account of delays. In either case, it is bad for the system. It is in this context, the CBEC has issued the circulars dated 8.4.2010. It is not unlikely that many of the delays are deliberate and intended to help the nefarious custom broker or harass the good ones. In this context, it is felt that this data is relevant. In exercise of powers under CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, we direct the Revenue to present the data regarding observation of various time limits prescribed under regulations. This data may be given in respect of cases taken up or pending in the Mumbai Customs since the amendment made by Notification No. 30/2010-Cus dated 8.4.2010 till 30.6.2016…."
The respondent Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai was directed to produce the data sought for on 23.8.2016 at the time of next hearing.
(See 2016-TIOL-1891-CESTAT-MUM)
