Cross-examination and inquiry timelines under customs broker licensing law can vitiate revocation when natural justice is not observed.

In proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, denial of cross-examination of persons whose statements formed the basis of the charge was held to offend natural justice and vitiate the inquiry, especially where no legally sustainable reason was shown for refusing the request. The absence of retraction, by itself, was not enough to justify reliance on untested statements. The document also notes that prescribed inquiry timelines cannot be disregarded without satisfactory explanation; unexplained delay in completing the proceedings rendered the revocation order unsustainable. As a result, the revocation, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon in the inquiry vitiated the proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. (ii) Whether non-adherence to the prescribed time limits in the inquiry proceedings could be treated as fatal to the revocation order.

Issue (i): Whether denial of cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon in the inquiry vitiated the proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: The proceedings against a customs broker are regulatory in nature and, where oral statements form the basis of the charge, the inquiry must conform to the procedure prescribed in the regulations and to the principles of natural justice. Reliance on untested statements, without permitting cross-examination and without a legally sustainable reason for refusal, undermines the evidentiary basis of the charges. Mere absence of retraction was not a sufficient ground to deny the request where the statements were central to the findings.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination was unjustified and the inquiry stood vitiated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether non-adherence to the prescribed time limits in the inquiry proceedings could be treated as fatal to the revocation order.

Analysis: The prescribed time lines in the licensing regulations are not to be applied in the abstract. Even if treated as directory, delay cannot be ignored where the order discloses no satisfactory justification for the lapse and the delay is not attributable to any legally acceptable cause. In the absence of a valid explanation, the appellate authority found the delayed completion of proceedings unsustainable.

Conclusion: The delay in completing the proceedings rendered the impugned order unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revocation order, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an inquiry under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations relies on witness statements, denial of cross-examination without adequate justification violates natural justice and vitiates the order, and unexplained non-compliance with the prescribed inquiry timelines may likewise invalidate the resulting action.

---