Customs broker licensing timelines are directory, not mandatory, so delay does not automatically invalidate proceedings.

Procedural time limits in Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 are directory, not mandatory. The Court reasoned that the licensing scheme under the Customs Act and the Regulations is designed to secure both discipline and revenue protection, while also ensuring fairness through prompt action and post-decisional hearing. The use of "shall" does not by itself make each timeline rigid; the correct test is legislative intent, purpose, and consequences of breach. Accordingly, delay beyond the prescribed stages does not automatically invalidate suspension, inquiry, revocation, or penalty proceedings, and the effect of delay must be assessed on the facts, including whether it is reasonable and properly explained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time limits in Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 for issuance of notice, completion of inquiry and passing of final order are mandatory or directory, and whether delay beyond those timelines automatically vitiates suspension or revocation proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulations 18, 19 and 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 shows that the licensing regime is intended both to maintain discipline among customs brokers and to protect revenue. Regulation 19 permits immediate suspension in appropriate cases where urgent action is necessary, followed by a post-decisional hearing. Regulation 20 then prescribes the procedure for revocation or penalty, including time frames at each stage. The use of the word "shall" is not by itself; the true test is legislative intent, the nature of the duty, the purpose of the provision, and the consequences of strict or rigid construction. A rigid mandatory construction would allow a licence to be restored or the proceedings to fail merely because of some delay, even where serious allegations exist, while an entirely flexible approach would permit indefinite suspension and defeat fairness to the broker. The proper construction is therefore that the timelines are meant to ensure expedition and accountability, but non-compliance does not ipso facto invalidate the proceedings in every case. The relevant inquiry is whether the delay is reasonable in the facts and circumstances, and whether the Revenue can justify the deviation by reasons and accountability at each stage.

Conclusion: The time limits in Regulation 20 are directory and not mandatory. Delay beyond the prescribed period does not automatically vitiate the suspension or inquiry, and the matter must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness in the facts of each case.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural time limits in a public regulatory scheme are directory where the statute does not attach automatic invalidity to breach, the object of the provision is to secure expedition, and the court must balance fairness to the regulated person against the need to avoid defeating the regulatory purpose by rigid construction.

---