Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations: Interpretation of 'Issue' and Time Limit

The Tribunal determined that the term 'issue' in Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 does not encompass 'serve'. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the ninety-day time limit in Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013 is mandatory. The matter was referred to the Division Bench for further consideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the word 'issue' in Regulation 20(1) CBLR, 2013 should include 'serve'.
2. Whether the time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(1) CBLR 2013 is mandatory or directory in nature.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Word 'Issue':

The primary issue was whether the term 'issue' in Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 (CBLR 2018) means 'serve'. The appellant argued that the notice must be served within ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report, failing which the revocation order would lapse. The Department contended that the regulation only required the notice to be issued within ninety days, which was complied with by tendering the notice to the Postal Department within the stipulated period.

The Tribunal examined the meaning of 'issue' in various legal contexts, including definitions from Black's Law Dictionary and interpretations in different regulations and statutes. It was noted that the term 'issue' is distinct from 'service' and 'given' as used in the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel and The Collector of Central Excise vs. M/s M.M. Rubber & Co., which clarified that 'issue' means the act of sending out or promulgating a notice, not necessarily its receipt by the addressee.

The Tribunal concluded that the term 'issue' in Regulation 17(1) of the 2018 Regulations does not mean 'serve'. This interpretation was supported by the fact that different expressions used in the same regulation should be assigned different meanings, as established in Devidayal Electronics and Wires Limited and another vs. Union of India and another and Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. vs. S. S. Ayodhya Distillery.

2. Nature of the Time Limit in Regulation 20(1):

The second issue was whether the ninety-day time limit for issuing a notice under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013 is mandatory or directory. The Tribunal reviewed various judgments, including those from the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court, which held that the time limits prescribed in similar regulations were mandatory. For instance, in Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (General) and Ors., the Delhi High Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the ninety-day period for issuing a show cause notice under Regulation 22(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR 2004).

Conversely, the Bombay High Court in The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai vs. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. held that the time limits in Regulation 20 of the CBLR 2013 were directory, not mandatory. The Calcutta High Court in OTA Fallons Forwarders Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India also followed this view.

The Tribunal decided to follow the Delhi High Court's interpretation, which considered the time limits mandatory. This decision was based on the principle that when different High Courts have conflicting views, the Tribunal should follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Kashmir Conductors established that the Tribunal must follow the jurisdictional High Court's view if it has expressed an opinion on the subject matter.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that:
1. The word 'issue' in Regulation 17(1) of the 2018 Regulations or Regulation 20(1) of the 2013 Regulations does not include 'serve'.
2. The time limit prescribed in Regulation 17(1) of the 2018 Regulations or Regulation 20(1) of the 2013 Regulations is mandatory in nature.

The papers were directed to be placed before the Division Bench for deciding the appeal.

---