2022 (9) TMI 1410 - HC - Customs

Interim Stay Granted in Customs Broker License Revocation Challenge

Cargo Marketing International Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration) & Ors.

The court addressed challenges to the revocation of a Customs Broker License and interpreted whether the timeline under Regulation 17 (7) of the Customs ... Revocation of petitioner’s Customs Broker License - compliance with the time limitation or not - Petitioner submits that the impugned order of revocation of petitioner’s license having been passed beyond the period of 90 days as mandated under Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of Asian Freight Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs [2016 (8) TMI 1362 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] which is not found applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since in the said case the show cause notice was challenged which was issued beyond the period of 90 days under Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR, 2018 and without giving reply to the same and time to complete the proceedings were still few months away as appears from concluded paragraph 58 of the aforesaid judgment petitioner had filed the Writ Petition challenging the said show cause notice while in the instant case petitioner has not come up at the stage of show cause notice and that the time was still available to complete the impugned proceeding rather petitioner has come up before this Court at the stage when the final adjudication order has already been passed beyond the statutory period of limitation of 90 days without any explanation for violation of such period of limitation prescribed under the aforesaid Regulation 17 (7). One more important fact liable for consideration in this case is that in this case order of suspension of the license was challenged before the Tribunal which stayed the order of permanent suspension of the petitioner’s license which is still existing. Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report under Regulation 17 (5) of the said regulation has specifically found that the allegations of violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) under CBLR, 2018 against the petitioner as “not proved”. It also appears from record that the order of suspension of petitioner’s license though it was stayed by the order of the Tribunal on 23rd August, 2022 but before such order of stay and during the pendency of the stay application before the Tribunal the respondent authority passed the impugned order of revocation of petitioner’s license. The issues involved in this Writ Petition is a pure question of law with regard to interpretation of Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 and as to whether time prescribed under the said Regulation for completion of the proceedings and passing of the final order within 90 days from the date of receipt of inquiry report is directory or mandatory and this Writ Petition on this legal issue should be heard on affidavits by the respondents - the impugned order of revocation of petitioner’s license dated 11th July, 2022 shall remain stayed till 31st January, 2023 or until further order, whichever is earlier. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Challenge to the revocation of a Customs Broker License under Regulation 17 (7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018).2. Interpretation of whether the timeline prescribed under Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 for completion of proceedings and passing of the final order within 90 days from the date of receipt of the inquiry report is directory or mandatory.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner challenged the revocation of their Customs Broker License based on an impugned order dated 11th July, 2022, issued by the Respondent No. 1 for alleged violations of Regulation 10 (m), (n), and (q) of the CBLR, 2018. The petitioner contended that the revocation order was passed beyond the 90-day limit prescribed under Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting an inquiry, found that the allegations against the petitioner were 'Not proved.' The petitioner argued that the revocation order should be set aside due to the jurisdiction exercised by the Respondent No. 1 being held as mandatory under Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that the order lacked reasons or justifications for the delay in passing it, and none of the grounds under Regulation 10 (m), (n), and (q) applied as per the findings of the Inquiry Report.Issue 2:The key legal issue revolved around the interpretation of whether the timeline prescribed under Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 was directory or mandatory. The respondents argued that the 90-day limit for passing the final order was directory and not mandatory, citing a judgment of the High Court dated 30th August, 2016. However, the petitioner contended that the timeline was mandatory, referencing a subsequent unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Leo Cargo Services Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, which held the timelines under Regulation 17 as mandatory. The petitioner stressed that even if the Bombay High Court's judgment was considered, any delay in compliance required justification. The Court acknowledged the legal issue as a pure question of law and granted an interim stay on the revocation order until 31st January, 2023, or until further order, considering the petitioner's prima facie case and the existing stay on the suspension of the license by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to the revocation of the Customs Broker License and delved into the interpretation of the mandatory nature of the timeline under Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018, ultimately granting an interim stay on the revocation order pending further proceedings.