Leo Cargo Services Through Its Director Sanjeev Maggu Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
Material Facts: The appellant challenged the CESTAT order dated 01.10.2019, which had upheld the revocation of its Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of its security deposit and imposition of penalty. The proceedings arose from allegations that the appellant and another person were involved in evasion of customs duty by diverting warehoused goods into the domestic market without payment of duty and by creating fictitious firms and bonded warehouses. Following investigations, a show cause notice dated 10.08.2018 was issued alleging contravention of Regulations 10(d), 10(g) and 10(q) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR 2018) read with the earlier CBLR 2013.
Procedural History: The appellant filed a written statement of defence and attended a personal hearing before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Report was submitted on 06.12.2018. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs, by Order-in-Original dated 04.02.2019, revoked the Customs Broker licence, ordered forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.75,000/-, and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/-.
The appellant appealed before CESTAT, contending that the Inquiry Report had been submitted beyond the prescribed period under the Regulations and that the proceedings were therefore vitiated. CESTAT held that the timeline under Regulation 20(5) of CBLR 2013 was directory and dismissed the appeal. Before the High Court, the appellant did not press the question relating to denial of cross-examination, and the Court confined itself to deciding whether the prescribed timeline was mandatory or directory.
