SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
VINEET KOTHARI, R. SURESH KUMAR, JJ.
The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII Commissionerate, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Sea Queen Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Adyar, Chennai - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 3 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 141 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel. For the Respondent:J.V. Niranjan, Advocate.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order VIII - Rule 1 - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130 - Investigation - Claim by Revenue that petitioner - Respondent is Customs Broker Queen Shipping Services Private Limited whose Customs Broker License was revoked by Appellant Revenue by in Order in-Original passed by Commissioner Customs Chennai - As said order revoking Customs Broker License of Respondent had been assailed before Chennai in Customs Appeal where Respondent Customs Broker who was Appellant before primarily raised issue of limitation as has been proscribed Regulation Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations - Customs Authorities detained container through which consignment was imported Enterprises an Importer pursuant to which first check by Group was ordered by Customs Authorities on Instead of presenting goods for first check Respondent/Customs Broker seems to have sent a letter Customs Authorities with a request to amend the Bill of Entry – Held, Customs Authorities detained the container through which consignment was imported by Enterprises an Importer pursuant to which first check by Group was ordered by Customs Authorities Instead of presenting goods for first check Respondent/Customs Broker seems to have sent a letter Customs Authorities with a request to amend Bill of Entry - Revenue has not failed in following the time schedule or limitation which is mandatory one as has been declared by Courts law in number of decisions referred to above but Respondent/Licensee made Revenue to wait for some time only to get some benefits on its own awaiting some orders to be passed in parallel proceedings initiated by Customs Authorities - Case in hand mandatory requirement of limitation has never been ignored by Revenue - Even in respect of limitation under Regulation Revenue was very conscious and was very particular about limitation within which they wanted to pass final order - However it was Respondent/Custom Broker/Licensee should voluntarily given up its right to insist the limitation clause by making a request to Revenue to keep file in abeyance awaiting orders to be passed in the related/parallel proceedings initiated by the Customs Authorities where Licensee expected some favorable orders - Since these aspects have not at all attempted to be considered by in impugned order are of considered view that court are fully satisfied that given and circumstances of case in hand makes it abundantly clear that order of is liable to be interfered with - As court aware that Tribunal since has passed impugned order only on basis of limitation and merits of issue since has not been discussed court are constrained to remit this matter to for fresh hearing to decide issue on merits without going into limitation point – Result impugned order of is set aside - Matter is remitted back to for fresh consideration of course only on merits of issue not on ground or point on limitation Regulation - It is open to parties to agitate issue on merits before as such opportunities would be given by to both parties and accordingly would the issue on merits at earliest within reasonable time – Petition allowed

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.40627/2019 (C/41944/2018-DB) dated 27.03.2019 and received on 25.04.2019 on the file of the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.)

R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The Respondent is a Customs Broker viz., M/s.Sea Queen Shipping Services Private Limited, whose Customs Broker Licence was revoked by the Appellant/Revenue by order dated 09.05.2008 in Order-in-Original No.63353/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - VIII. As the said order revoking the Customs Broker Licence of the Respondent had been assailed before the CESTAT, Chennai in Customs Appeal No.41944/2018, where, the Respondent/Customs Broker who was the Appellant before the CESTAT, primarily raised the issue of limitation, as has been proscribed under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (in short “CBLR, 2013”). The CESTAT also on the only point of limitation had concluded that, the order of the Revenue dated 09.05.2018 in Order-in-Original revoking the Customs Broker Licence of the Respondent/Customs Broker was beyond the Statutory Limitation Period, accordingly the said order was set aside and the customs appeal was allowed by the impugned order of the CESTAT in Final Order No.40627/2019 dated 27.03.2019. Felt aggrieved over the said order of the CESTAT, the Revenue preferred this Appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

“A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restoring the Customs Broker License of the respondent herein?

B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right and justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by accepting the contention of the assessee that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 06.06.2017 and the inquiry officer report was submitted only on 29.11.2017 and the date of revocation of the license was on 09.05.2018 which again is more than 90 days beyond the Inquiry officer report, and overlooking the fact that the offence report dt.09.06.2017 was received by the appellant herein on 12.06.2017 and SCN was issued on 06.09.2017 which is within the stipulated period of 90 days and therefore there has been no breach of time lines by the appellant herein?”

2. The necessary facts in nutshell which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows:

2.1. That the Respondent herein is a Customs Broker Licensee at Chennai. While so, on 01.04.2016 the Customs Authorities detained the container through which consignment was imported by M/s.Payal Enterprises, an Importer, pursuant to which, the first check by the Group was ordered by the Customs Authorities on 06.04.2016. Instead of presenting the goods for the first check, the Respondent/Customs Broker seems to have sent a letter dated 21.04.2016 to the Customs Authorities with a request to amend the Bill of Entry No.4783575 dated 04.04.2016 by adding Invoice No.YF2-2016 dated 15.03.2016 by changing the description of the goods, quantity and value as per the second invoice.

2.2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid, the original Invoice i.e., the first Invoice dated 15.03.2016 and the second Invoice on the same date under which the Respondent/Customs Broker requested the Customs Authorities to make an amendment of the description of the goods, its total quantity, unit, unit price and total value of the goods in US Dollar, as has been given in the show cause notice of the Customs Authorities dated 06.06.2017 in a Tabular Column in paras 4.0 and 4.1, are extracted hereunder:

“4.0 The goods as per the first invoice YF1-2016 dated 15/03/2016 were found to be as follows [RUD #3].

Marks & numbers Description of the goods
Total Quantity UnitUnit Price (USD) Total Amount (USD)
N/MWater filter 558
PCS1.214
677.41
DC-201 Toy Baby Chair Assorted
25472PCS
0.428
10902.02
RI-101 Toy Ball
34140DZN
0.228
7783.92
HM-01 Toy Rattle 63720 PCS
0.085
5416.20

    4.1 The list of goods added as per the secon


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top