ACS Shipping & Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. COC had miserably failed to discharge the obligation cast on him to show that the impugned action was initiated within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report.
Held: Assessee was a licensed customs broker. His license was issued by the Commissioner of Customs/respondent (COC). COC revoked assessee’s license and also forfeited the security deposit furnished by him. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed. Assessee contend that the impugned action was time-barred. Admittedly, the cause of action had arisen way back in June–September 2018. The fraud committed by the exporter was noticed by DRI, and an investigation was taken up. The export had taken place through the Mumbai Customs Commissionerate, which was duly informed. It was further argued that they prohibited assessee from operating within the Mumbai Customs Commissionerate. COC did not take any action within the statutorily prescribed 90 days. COC issued a show cause notice only on 14.09.2021 and the impugned order on 25.02.2022. It was held that after analyzing Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 and observed that the Principal Commissioner of Customs should issue a notice in writing to the customs broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report. Regulation 17(1) mandates that the authority must initiate action for revocation or imposing a penalty within a period of 90 days. This period had to be reckoned from the date of receipt of an offence report. The expression “offence report” was not originally defined, the bench added. It was noted that COC had not pleaded as to what offence report was received by him, which triggered the impugned action. No material had been placed to show that the offence report was received only on 22.06.2022. COC had miserably failed to discharge the obligation cast on him to show that the impugned action was initiated within the period of limitation prescribed by Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018, added the bench.
