Court sets aside proceedings for exceeding time limits, ruling in favor of petitioners on license suspension.

The court allowed all the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned proceedings due to the mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed under the relevant regulations. The court emphasized that suspending a license pending enquiry cannot be prolonged endlessly without completing other procedures within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, annulling the actions taken beyond the stipulated time limits and provided observations and suggestions to the Revenue for future cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of revoking licenses beyond the prescribed time limit.
2. Validity of suspension orders and show cause notices issued beyond the prescribed time limit.
3. Compliance with the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013 and 2018.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of revoking licenses beyond the prescribed time limit:
- W.P.No.3366/2019: The petitioner challenged the revocation of their license on the grounds that the Enquiry Officer issued the report beyond 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice, and the Commissioner did not pass orders within 90 days from the date of the enquiry report, violating Regulation 20(5) and 20(7) of CBLR, 2013.
- W.P.No.27948/2019: The petitioner argued that the Enquiry Report was submitted beyond 90 days from the date of the show cause notice, and the Commissioner did not pass the final order within 90 days from the submission of the Enquiry report, violating Regulations 20(5) and 20(7) of CBLR 2013.
- W.P.No.28726/2019: The petitioner contended that the Enquiry report was not given within 90 days from the date of the show cause notice, thus violating Regulation 17(5) and Regulation 17(7).

2. Validity of suspension orders and show cause notices issued beyond the prescribed time limit:
- W.P.No.1855/2019 & W.P.No.18041/2019: The petitioner challenged the suspension order and subsequent show cause notice for cancellation of the license, arguing that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the date of the offence report, violating Regulation 17(1) of CBLR 2018.
- W.P.No.18060/2019: The petitioner challenged the extension of the suspension order, arguing that the order continuing the suspension was passed beyond 15 days from the date of personal hearing, violating Regulation 16 of 2018 Regulations.
- W.P.No.6755/2019: The petitioner contended that the enquiry report was not filed within 90 days from the date of the show cause notice, violating Regulation 17(5) of 2018 Regulation.
- W.P.No.18755/2019: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the date of the offence report, and the Enquiry Report was filed beyond 90 days from the show cause notice, violating Regulation 17(1) and Regulation 17(5) of CBLR 2018.
- W.P.No.22154/2019: The petitioner contended that the Enquiry report was not filed within 90 days from the date of the show cause notice, and the Commissioner did not pass the final order within 90 days from the receipt of the Enquiry Report, violating Regulation 17(5) and Regulation 17(7).
- W.P.No.31383/2018: The issue raised in this writ petition got merged with W.P.No.22154 of 2019.
- W.P.No.28850/2019: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the date of the offence report, violating Regulation 17(1) of 2018 Regulations.
- W.P.No.28858/2019: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the date of the offence report, and the Enquiry report was not submitted within 90 days from the date of the show cause notice, violating Regulations 20(1), 20(5), and 20(7) of 2013 Regulations.

3. Compliance with the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013 and 2018:
- The petitioners argued that the time prescribed under the Regulations for doing each act is mandatory. If no act is done within the prescribed time, the same cannot be sustained.
- The respondents contended that the limitation prescribed under the relevant regulations is not mandatory since no consequence follows for not following the time limit. They argued that the time limit prescribed is only directory and not mandatory.
- The court considered the relevant provisions under both regulations, which are pari materia, and found that the time limit fixed is mandatory. The court referred to previous decisions, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Impexnet Logistic vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) and the Division Bench decision of this Court made in CMA No.730 of 2016, which held that the time limits are mandatory.
- The court observed that merely because the Regulation does not prescribe or spell out expressly or specifically as to what would be the consequence, there could be no presumption that there is no consequence at all. The court emphasized that suspending a license pending enquiry cannot be prolonged endlessly without completing the other procedures as a follow-up action within the prescribed time limit.
- The court concluded that the time limit prescribed under the relevant regulations is mandatory and not directory. Consequently, the impugned proceedings passed/issued beyond the prescribed time limit were set aside.

Conclusion:
The court allowed all the writ petitions and set aside the impugned proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed under the relevant regulations. The court made observations and suggestions to the Revenue to safeguard the interest of both parties in future cases.

---