Court sets aside Customs Broker License revocation, penalties, forfeiture order citing Regulation violations. Respondent allowed lawful proceedings.

The Court allowed the writ petition challenging the revocation of the Customs Broker License, penalties, and forfeiture of security deposit, citing violations of the limitation periods under the Customs Brokers License Regulation, 2013. The Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed by the Regulations, rendering the order invalid for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling permits the respondent to initiate lawful proceedings if valid reasons exist, with no costs awarded in this judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petition due to limitation period violation in revoking Customs Broker License.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original revoking their Customs Broker License, imposing penalties, and forfeiting the security deposit, contending that the writ petition is maintainable as the impugned proceedings exceeded the period of limitation stipulated under the Customs Brokers License Regulation, 2013. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the date of receiving the offence report, as required by Regulation 20(1). The Enquiry Officer's report was submitted after 90 days, violating Regulation 20(7). The petitioner relied on a previous court order to support their contention.

The respondent, in a counter affidavit, detailed the circumstances leading to the license revocation but did not dispute the timeline provided by the petitioner. The respondent argued that the impugned order should not be set aside solely on the ground of limitation, as the allegations were thoroughly considered for license revocation, suggesting the petitioner to file an appeal instead.

The Court noted that the show cause notice was issued after 90 days from the offence report, violating Regulation 20(1). Additionally, the impugned order was passed beyond 90 days from the Enquiry Officer's report submission, breaching Regulation 20(7). Referring to past court decisions, the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limits set by the Regulations, highlighting that exceeding the prescribed time limits rendered the impugned order invalid for lack of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order due to the violations of the limitation periods under the Regulations. The ruling does not prevent the respondent from initiating lawful proceedings if valid reasons exist. No costs were awarded in this judgment.

---