MAHARAJA CARGO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted as under : -

(2.) I have considered the submissions from both sides as well as the case records. The appeal is against the suspension of the CHA licence of the appellants under Regulation 20 (2) of the CHALR, 2004. The said Regulation allows the jurisdictional Commissioner to suspend the CHA licence where an immediate action is necessary. The time limit specified in the said Regulation is 15 days from the date of receipt of the investigation report. The appellants have challenged, in this case, the impugned suspension order on the ground that the department was aware of the offence much earlier as the DRI authorities had issued the SCN on 16.9.2011 whereas the suspension has been ordered on 17.10.2011 which is beyond the 15 days period. During the course of hearing, ld. SDR was directed to verify and intimate as to when the report of investigating agency was received by the Commissioner who has issued the suspension order. The ld. SDR has, after verification, submitted that the investigating authority, in this case, was the Zonal Unit of the DRI in Chennai and that the Additional Director, DRI had submitted the investigation report dt. 28.9.2011 to the Commissioner of Customs. He has, further, verified and stated that this report was received in the Commissioner 's office on 3.10.2011. As such, I find that the suspension order which has been issued on 17.10.2011 is within the time limit of 15 days prescribed in the Regulation. The ld. Advocate has referred to the Board 's circular dt. 18.4.2010 which is to the effect that the investigating authority has to furnish his report to the Commissioner within 30 days of the detection of the offence. This appears to be an internal guideline issued by the Board. I am of the considered view that this instruction contained in the circular is not part of the Regulation made by the Board. The statute has authorized the Board to make Regulations and the Regulations so made have statutory force. The instructions issued over and above the Regulations cannot be put on the same footing as statutory regulations nor would it be proper for the Tribunal to grant relief treating the instructions to be statutory Regulations which they are not.