Customs broker license cancellation set aside as timeline breaches under Regulation 20(5) are directory not mandatory

The Calcutta HC determined that timeline requirements under Regulation 20(5) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 are directory rather than mandatory. The court held that the Tribunal cannot discard an enquiry report entirely for timeline breaches but must consider it on merits and assign appropriate weightage. The case involved a customs broker whose license was cancelled and security deposit forfeited. The Tribunal partially accepted the enquiry report, upholding the forfeiture while setting aside the license cancellation. The HC ruled that the Tribunal has discretion to weigh enquiry reports appropriately after merit-based consideration, disposing of the application accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the timeline prescribed under Regulation 20 (5) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 and whether the Tribunal could discard the enquiry report for breaching the timeline or consider it on merits.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Breach of timeline under Regulation 20 (5) of the Regulations of 2013
- The respondent, a Customs Broker, was found aiding illegal exportation of contraceptives.
- Customs authorities suspended the respondent's license and issued Show Cause Notices.
- The Tribunal set aside the revocation order but upheld the confiscation of the security amount.
- Customs authorities appealed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Division Bench held the timeline under Regulation 20 (5) as directory, differing on the treatment of the enquiry report.

Issue 2: Treatment of enquiry report by the Tribunal
- The Hon'ble First Judge opined that the Tribunal correctly exercised discretion in rejecting the enquiry report.
- The Hon'ble Second Judge opined that the Tribunal should consider the report on merits despite the breach of the timeline.
- Both Judges agreed that the timeline under Regulation 20 (5) was directory.

Conclusion:
- The Division Bench's unanimous decision on the directory nature of the timeline is binding.
- The Tribunal has discretion to consider the enquiry report on merits despite the breach.
- The Tribunal partially accepted the enquiry report in imposing penalties.
- The Adjudicating Authority is not required to apprise the broker's reply in a specific manner.
- The timeline under Regulation 20 (5) is held as directory, allowing discretion in attaching weightage to the enquiry report.
- The reference is answered, and the case is disposed of.

Note: The judgment refers to various legal precedents and emphasizes the discretion of the Tribunal in evaluating evidence and imposing penalties based on the enquiry report.

---