Delay in customs adjudication does not automatically void the order; late completion alone is not enough to nullify it.

An adjudication order passed beyond the time limit in Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent's Licensing Regulations, 2004 does not become void or non est merely because of delay. The Court held that neither the Customs Act, 1962 nor the relevant rules or regulations create automatic invalidity for late completion of adjudication. Undue delay may support departmental action against the officer or be relevant in appellate or revisional review, but it does not by itself wipe out the order. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order solely on delay was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether an adjudication order passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent's Licensing Regulations, 2004 becomes void or non est in law.

Analysis: The Court held that mere delay in completion of adjudication does not, by itself, invalidate the order or render it non est, as neither the Customs Act, 1962 nor the relevant rules or regulations provide for such a consequence. The Court observed that undue delay may justify departmental action against the officer or be relevant in an appellate or revisional challenge, but it does not automatically wipe out the adjudication. The Tribunal's setting aside of the order solely on the ground of delay was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order of the Commissioner was not void or non est merely because it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication by a speaking order.

---