Court rules time limit is directory, not mandatory. Upholds IEC lending evidence decision. Procedural timelines

The court ruled in favor of the appellant on the issues related to the time limit for passing the order in the original case, determining that Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, is directory and not mandatory. However, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the lack of evidence on the lending of Importer Exporter Code (IEC), leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized that procedural timelines should not invalidate proceedings without reasonable justification for delays and factual findings should not be overturned without sufficient cause.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the time limit to pass the order in original within 90 days of the receipt of the inquiry report is correct and justified.
2. Whether Regulation 17, which prescribes the time limit of 90 days for passing the order in original, is mandatory or directory.
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding against the Appellant on the ground of limitation when the respondent adopted dilatory tactics to claim the mileage of limitation under Regulation 17 of CBLR.
4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that lending of IEC is not an offense under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Time Limit for Passing Order in Original:
The court examined Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (C.B.L.R.), 2018, which outlines the procedure for revoking a license or imposing a penalty, including the timeline for issuing notices and completing inquiries. The regulation stipulates that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs must issue a notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offense report, and the Customs Broker must submit a defense within 30 days. An inquiry report must be filed within 90 days from the notice, and the final order must be passed within 90 days from the submission of the inquiry report. The court noted that the order in this case was passed on the 92nd day after the inquiry report, beyond the prescribed 90-day period.

2. Mandatory or Directory Nature of Regulation 17:
The court referred to precedents from the Bombay High Court and the High Court of Calcutta, which held that similar time limits in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, were directory and not mandatory. The rationale was that the strict adherence to the time frame could be impractical due to various unforeseen circumstances, such as the non-cooperation of the Customs Broker or administrative exigencies. The court concluded that Regulation 17 of C.B.L.R., 2018, should be considered directory, emphasizing that procedural timelines should not invalidate the proceedings if not strictly followed, provided there is a reasonable justification for the delay.

3. Tribunal's Holding on Limitation:
The appellant argued that the delay in completing the inquiry was due to the non-cooperation of the respondent, and thus, the Tribunal should not have held against the appellant on the ground of limitation. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the regulation is procedural and directory, and delays caused by the respondent's tactics should not invalidate the proceedings.

4. Lending of IEC as an Offense:
The Tribunal had found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent had knowledge of the lending of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) and had not obtained necessary documents from the exporters. The court noted that the Tribunal's finding was a factual determination based on the lack of evidence provided by the department. The appellant failed to demonstrate that this finding was incorrect. Therefore, the court held that the question of whether lending of IEC is an offense under the Customs Act, 1962, becomes academic in this case due to the lack of evidence.

Conclusion:
The court answered the first three substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant, holding that Regulation 17 of C.B.L.R., 2018, is directory and not mandatory. However, it upheld the Tribunal's factual finding regarding the lack of evidence on the lending of IEC, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized that procedural timelines should not invalidate proceedings if there is a reasonable justification for delays, and factual findings based on evidence should not be interfered with without sufficient cause.

---