Court upholds order despite timing issue under CBLR. Appeal to CESTAT for quick resolution.

The court held that the impugned order was not vitiated by the violation of the 90-day timeframe under Regulation 17(5) of CBLR 2018 or Regulation 20(5) of CBLR 2013. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with CESTAT, which was requested to expedite the disposal of the appeal within three months from the filing date. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with no costs awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018.
2. Availability of an alternate remedy through appeal to CESTAT.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018:
The petitioner, holding a Customs Brokers License (CBL), was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging failure to comply with specific regulations under CBLR 2018 and CBLR 2013. The SCN, dated 14.09.2018, called for a defense statement and scheduled a personal hearing. The petitioner responded on 22.11.2018, beyond the 30-day limit stipulated in Regulation 17(1) of CBLR 2018. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs submitted the enquiry report on 21.02.2019, leading to an order on 23.05.2019 revoking the CBL and imposing penalties.

The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds of non-compliance with the 90-day timeframe for submitting the enquiry report as per sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018. The court noted that while the petitioner argued that the regulations were mandatory, the respondent contended that the regulations were directory unless a consequence for non-compliance was specified, referencing the Salem Advocate Bar Association case.

The court examined the regulations and concluded that the timeframes were sequential and had a cascading effect. Since the petitioner submitted their defense beyond the 30-day limit, the 90-day period for the enquiry report should be calculated from the date of the defense submission (22.11.2018). Thus, the report submitted on 21.02.2019 was within the permissible timeframe.

2. Availability of an alternate remedy through appeal to CESTAT:
The court acknowledged that an alternate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, by appealing to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised with caution, especially in fiscal matters, and only in cases of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice principles, or when the alternate remedy is ineffective or illusory.

The court found that none of these exceptions applied in the present case. Hence, it directed the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal before CESTAT. The court also allowed the petitioner to seek condonation of delay and exclusion of time spent in the writ petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, with CESTAT to decide such applications on merit.

Conclusion:
The court held that the impugned order was not vitiated by the violation of the 90-day timeframe under Regulation 17(5) of CBLR 2018 or Regulation 20(5) of CBLR 2013. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with CESTAT, which was requested to expedite the disposal of the appeal within three months from the filing date. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with no costs awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---