Directory time limit for customs broker enquiry reports; delayed report alone did not invalidate proceedings and tribunal relief stood.

The Calcutta HC treated the 90-day period for submission of the enquiry report under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 as directory because the regulation prescribed no express consequence for delay, so a delayed report was not invalid for that reason alone. On appellate review, the court held that interference with the tribunal was unwarranted unless a substantial question of law arose from a perverse or legally unsustainable exercise of discretion. The tribunal's refusal to rely on the delayed enquiry report was therefore left undisturbed, and the revocation-related relief in favour of the customs broker remained operative.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 90-day time limit for submission of the enquiry report under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was mandatory or directory. (ii) Whether the tribunal was justified in rejecting the enquiry report and interfering with the revocation order on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the 90-day time limit for submission of the enquiry report under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The regulation prescribed a time limit for completion of the enquiry report but did not attach any express consequence for delay. The reasoning treated the time prescription as an administrative instruction rather than a condition going to the validity of the proceedings. In the separate opinion, the same provision was also read as directory, but it was emphasised that once the enquiry is completed, the report should ordinarily be considered on merits rather than discarded solely for delay.

Conclusion: The time limit was directory and not mandatory.

Issue (ii): Whether the tribunal was justified in rejecting the enquiry report and interfering with the revocation order on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The tribunal's refusal to attach weight to the delayed enquiry report was treated in the majority reasoning as an exercise of discretion that did not give rise to any substantial question of law under the appellate jurisdiction. In the separate opinion, the enquiry was found to have been conducted without adequate opportunity to the respondent, without proper scrutiny of material particulars, and without fair consideration of the written reply and supporting materials. The revocation findings were held to be unsustainable on the record, and the punishment was in any event regarded as already sufficiently suffered because of prolonged suspension and confiscation of the security deposit.

Conclusion: The tribunal's order was not interfered with, and the respondent's relief was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the tribunal's order remained operative, with the respondent succeeding overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural time limit in the customs broker disciplinary regulations carries no express penal consequence, it is directory; and in appellate review under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, interference is unwarranted unless a substantial question of law arises from a perverse or legally unsustainable exercise of discretion.

---