Directory procedural timelines in customs disciplinary appeals do not bar merits-based rehearing after parties are heard and reasons given.

In a customs disciplinary appeal concerning revocation of a customs house agency licence, the tribunal's order was set aside because the matter required fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the interested parties and giving a reasoned decision. The court treated the timeline for submission of the enquiry report as directory, not mandatory, and directed that the appeal be decided on merits. The confiscation of the security amount furnished by the respondent was also set aside, and the matter was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tribunal's order in the customs house agency licence revocation matter was liable to be set aside and the appeal remitted for fresh decision on merits, and whether the timeline for submission of the enquiry report was mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The order was set aside and the matter sent back to the tribunal for rehearing on merits after hearing the interested parties and for passing a reasoned order. The timeline for submission of the enquiry report was directed to be treated as directory, and the appeal was required to be decided on merits. The confiscation of the security amount furnished by the respondent was also set aside.

Conclusion: The tribunal's order could not stand and the appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, with the enquiry-report timeline treated as directory.

Final Conclusion: The appellate controversy was not finally decided on merits by the High Court, and the matter was restored to the tribunal for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: In a customs disciplinary appeal, a procedural timeline for submission of the enquiry report may be treated as directory where the appeal must still be decided on merits after hearing the parties and by a reasoned order.

---