Customs Brokers License interim order lapses, petitions closed with no costs. Parties can revisit issues in future.

The court clarified that the interim order prohibiting the Customs Brokers License had lapsed by operation of a statutory provision, despite being termed a Regulation. As there was no current prohibition in place, the writ petition and related petitions were disposed of as closed, with no order as to costs. The judge allowed all questions raised in the petition to be revisited by the parties in future proceedings, emphasizing that the positions of both sides could be addressed in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Extension of interim order validity under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the extension of an interim order under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The matter was listed for extension of an interim stay order granted by a predecessor judge. The interim order was initially granted on 07.07.2021 due to a prohibitory order passed against the petitioner, which was beyond the prescribed period of ninety days. The order directed an interim stay until 22.07.2021 for adjudication purposes. Subsequently, the interim order was extended by another predecessor judge on 26.10.2021. The lone respondent, Commissioner of Customs, filed a counter affidavit in response to the main writ petition challenging the Prohibition of Customs Brokers License (CBL) under Section 15 of the said Regulations.

The learned Revenue counsel argued that the impugned order prohibiting the CBL had elapsed on 25.07.2021 as per the first proviso to Regulation 15 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. He emphasized that there was no current prohibition in place. On the other hand, the counsel for the writ petitioner highlighted that the petitioner had been operating under the interim orders of the court. The judge acknowledged the positions of both sides and left all questions open for future proceedings, allowing them to be raised and addressed in accordance with the law.

The judge clarified that the impugned order had lapsed by operation of a statutory provision, despite being termed a Regulation. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue counsel, leading to the closure of the writ petition. The respondent's position, as stated in the counter affidavit, confirmed that the impugned order was an interim measure. Consequently, the captioned writ petition and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP) were disposed of as closed, with no order as to costs. The judgment made it clear that all questions raised in the petition could be revisited by both parties in the future if necessary.

---