M Dharamdas & Co Vs Commissioner of Customs (General) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has set aside the revocation of the customs broker license of M Dharamdas & Co and the forfeiture of its security deposit, citing procedural delays by customs authorities. The case involved allegations of misconduct in handling crane imports, leading to proceedings under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004. However, the final order was issued under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013, which replaced the earlier regulations.
During the proceedings, the appellant pointed out significant delays, including a 109-day gap between the offense report and initiation of proceedings, 356 days between initiation and completion of the inquiry, and a total duration of 493 days, exceeding the deadlines stipulated in both the 2004 and 2013 regulations. No justification was provided by the licensing authority for these delays. The tribunal referenced the AB Paul & Company v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) case, which relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai v. Unison Clearing P Ltd [2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom)]. The court held that while regulatory timelines are directory, authorities must justify delays and cannot use the directory nature as a shield in the absence of contributory negligence by the customs broker.
