ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned notice dated 01.07.2016 issued to the petitioner under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013.

2. The impugned notice has been challenged on the ground that it is contrary to the Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the role of the petitioner in the alleged mis-declaring in description of the imported goods came to the light of the Customs Department and a show cause notice dated 11.09.2012 bearing reference F.No.VIII/48/10/2012-DRI was issued to several persons including the aforesaid authorised representatives in respect of clearance of import goods vide bill of entry No.481515 dated 11.03.2010 was noticed and penalty was imposed on the authorised representative viz., M.Muniasamy, the petitioner vide Order in Original No.43946/2015 dated 30.12.2015. By the said order, the penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and another penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned show cause notice is therefore challenged on the two grounds namely, the impugned show cause notice has been issued in respect of alleged offence by DRI for which already a show cause notice dated 11.09.2012 was issued to Maharaja Carbo for the imports made by M/s.Quality Lube Products Private Limited, Chennai vide bill of entry Nos.460967 dated 19.03.2010, 460968 dated 19.03.2010 and 481515 dated 11.03.2010.

4. It is submitted that in the show cause notice itself there was a reference to bill of entry No.481515 dated 11.03.2010 which was processed by the petitioner. It is submitted that long after the said show cause notice was issued and revocation of license of the said Maharaja Carbo vide order in Original No.F.No.R-277/CHA dated 28.05.2014, the impugned show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 01.07.2016.

5. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the impugned show cause notice is much after passing of the Order in original No.F.No.CAU/DRI/CHE/41/2012 dated 30.12.2015 and was therefore barred by law.

6. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the following decisions:

(i) Santon Shipping Service vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Ors. C.M.A.No.730 of 2016.

(ii) Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. MKS Shipping Agencies Pvt.Ltd., 2017(348) E.L.T.640 (Mad.)

(iii) Commr.of Cus. (Sea Port Import), Chennai vs. Cestat, Chennai, 2014(310) E.L.T.673 (Mad.)

(iv) M/s.Carewell Shipping Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Director cum- Chairman, G.R.Seethabathy, Old No.48, Rajajisalai, 3rd Floor, Chennai 600 001, vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, Custom House, No.60, Rajajisalai, Chennai 600 001 and two others, W.P.Nos.26923 and 26934 of 2018

(v) KTR Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd, vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate and Ors. Manu/TN/9507/2019

(vi) Meticulous Forwarders vs. Commissioner or Customs in W.P.No.26686 of 2015

(vii) Necko Freight Forwarders Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Cus. (General), 2018(360) E.L.T.879 (Del.)

(viii) Sabin Logistics Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII, 2019(367) E.L.T.200 (Mad.)

7. A specific reference was made to the decision of this Court in Meticulous Forwarders vs. Commissioner or Customs in W.P.No.26686 of 2015 dated 10.01.2020, most of the above decisions rendered by this Court were considered and relief was granted to similarly placed customs Agent.

8. Defending the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Customs Department drew my attention of this Court in para 22 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that even though the offence was committed during March 2010 and DRI issued a show cause notice on 11.09.2012, as a licensing authority, the respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Commissionerate VIII came to know