Mandatory revocation timelines under customs broker regulations must be strictly followed, or licence cancellation and forfeiture fail.

Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 prescribes a complete and sequential time schedule for revocation proceedings, including initiation, inquiry, report, reply and final order. The prescribed periods under sub-regulations (1), (5) and (7) are mandatory, not merely directory, so the entire process must be conducted within those limits. Where the authority acts beyond the statutory timetable and no exceptional circumstance justifies departure, the action is unsustainable. On that basis, the revocation of the customs broker licence and the consequential forfeiture of the security deposit were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit were invalid for non-compliance with the time limits prescribed under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing (Amendment) Regulations, 2013.

Analysis: Regulation 20 prescribes a complete and sequential time schedule for initiation of proceedings, inquiry, submission of report, reply, and final order. The prescribed periods under sub-regulations (1), (5), and (7) are intended to govern the entire revocation process, and the use of mandatory language leaves no scope for treating the schedule as merely directory. The inquiry and final order in the present case were passed far beyond the prescribed limits, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify departure from the statutory procedure. Where a power is required to be exercised in a particular manner, it must be exercised only in that manner.

Conclusion: The revocation order and the consequential forfeiture were not sustainable and were set aside; the appeal was allowed.

---