Mandatory time limits in customs broker disciplinary proceedings can vitiate forfeiture orders when delays are material.

Strict time limits under the customs broker disciplinary framework were treated as mandatory, so substantial delay in issuing the show cause notice, completing the enquiry report and passing the final order vitiated the proceedings. The delay was linked to repeated changes of the enquiry officer, and the contraventions concerning each customs broker were treated as distinct so one appeal could be considered independently. On that basis, the forfeiture order was set aside, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the order forfeiting the security deposit were liable to be set aside for non-adherence to the time limits prescribed under the Customs House Agents regulations.

Analysis: The proceedings against the customs brokers were governed by strict timelines for issue of show cause notice, submission of the enquiry report and passing of the final order. The delay between detection of the offence and issuance of the notice, as well as the delay in completion of the enquiry, was found to be substantial and attributable to repeated change of the enquiry officer. The alleged contraventions against each customs broker were held to be distinct and separate, so the appeal of one broker could be decided independently. In view of the settled view that the prescribed timelines under the customs broker regulatory framework are mandatory, breach of those timelines vitiated the disciplinary action.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was set aside and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the regulatory time limits governing customs broker disciplinary proceedings are violated in a material manner, the resultant disciplinary order cannot be sustained.

---