[Order per : R.K. Singh, Member (T)]. - Heard Shri Priyadarshi Manish, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajiv Gupta, ld. Departmental Representative representing the respondent/Revenue.
2. The appellant is a licenced Customs Broker. He is aggrieved by the order dated 27-2-2015 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, New Delhi. The impugned order revoked appellant’s Customs Broker licence and forfeited security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- furnished by him.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenges the impugned order on several grounds including that the order is invalid for transgression of time limits prescribed in Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. After hearing the respective [parties], since the challenge to the impugned order is primarily on the ground of violation of time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(1), appears to have been made out, we refrain from going into other contentions urged on behalf of the appellants, viz., challenge to the impugned order, on merits of the decision, to revoke the licence and forfeit the deposit.
4. As per the impugned order, the show cause notice under Regulation 20 was issued on 28-7-2014 and the enquiry report by the Dy. Commissioner was submitted on 23-12-2014, which is more than 140 days after the show cause notice. As per Regulation 20(5), the Dy. Commissioner is required to submit the enquiry report within 90 days from the date of issue of the show cause notice under Regulation 20(1). Thus, the enquiry report was submitted clearly beyond the period prescribed in Regulation 20(5) ibid.
5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Shankar Clearing & Forwarding v. C.C. (Import & General) - (Del.), the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. C.C., Sea Port/Imports, Chennai - (Mad.), this Tribunal in Rajeev Mayer v. C.C. (Import & General), New Delhi - (Tri.-Del.), in Om Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. (General), Mumbai - (Tri.-Mumbai) and in Sri Radhakrishna Shipping (P) Ltd. v. C.C. (General), Mumbai - (Tri.-Mumbai) have uniformly held that if any of the intermediary steps such as such issue of show cause notice, drawing up of an inquiry report, or passing of a revocation order is beyond the periods mandated under Regulation 20 of the 2013 Licensing Regulations, the eventual order of revocation would be invalid.
6. For aforesaid reasons and on the preceding analyses, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without costs.