Court grants interim order staying Customs Broker License revocation pending Final Hearing.

The Court granted an interim order staying the revocation of the petitioner's Customs Broker License until a specified date, finding a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner regarding the mandatory nature of the timeline under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The respondents were directed to file an affidavit-in-opposition, and the matter was scheduled for a 'Final Hearing' in March 2023.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to revocation of Customs Broker License under Regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018 based on alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), (m), (n), and (q) - Interpretation of whether the timeline for passing the order under Regulation 17(7) is mandatory or directory.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the revocation of their Customs Broker License under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) for alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), (m), (n), and (q). The impugned order was issued on 11th July, 2022, beyond the 90-day timeline prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018. The petitioner argued that the timeline is mandatory, citing a judgment of the Bombay High Court. However, the respondents contended that the timeline is directory, relying on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in a different case. The petitioner further highlighted a subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court, which held the timelines under Regulation 17 to be mandatory. The petitioner emphasized the need for justification in case of delay, which was not provided in the impugned order.

The petitioner also argued that none of the grounds provided under Regulations 10(d), (m), (n), and (q) applied to their case, as confirmed by the Inquiry Officer's report. The petitioner asserted that the exporters in question still existed, as evidenced by statutory records. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns regarding the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction over matters related to Duty Drawback on export transactions, which were not relevant to the license revocation proceedings.

The Court acknowledged the legal issue of whether the timeline under Regulation 17(7) is mandatory or directory as a pure question of law. Considering the Inquiry Officer's findings and the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner. An interim order was granted to stay the revocation of the petitioner's license until a specified date. The Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition, with the petitioner given the opportunity to respond. The matter was listed for 'Final Hearing' in the monthly list of March, 2023.

---