Customs broker licence revocation and suspension proceedings under CBLR 2018 set aside for missing Reg. 17(1) 90-day notice deadline

The dominant issue was whether revocation/penal proceedings under CBLR, 2018 were vitiated for breach of the mandatory timeline in Reg. 17(1) requiring issuance of a notice within 90 days of the offence report. Relying on consistent HC authority that these timelines are mandatory and that notices/orders issued beyond the prescribed period are unsustainable, the Tribunal held that the failure to issue the revocation notice within 90 days rendered the action invalid; consequently, the revocation/suspension order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Although lapses in due diligence and record-keeping were noted, proportionality and prolonged suspension were treated as reinforcing reasons against sustaining the impugned order.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the continuation/confirmation of suspension and allied action against the customs broker was vitiated for non-adherence to the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, particularly the requirement to issue the notice for revocation/penalty within the stipulated period from the offence report.

(ii) If the proceedings were vitiated by breach of mandatory timelines, whether the impugned order suspending the licence could be sustained notwithstanding allegations of regulatory lapses by the customs broker.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Mandatory timelines under CBLR, 2018-effect of non-compliance

Legal framework (as discussed and applied by the Court): The Court examined the scheme of the CBLR, 2018 governing suspension and subsequent revocation/penalty proceedings, including the requirement that a notice for revocation/imposition of penalty is to be issued within a prescribed period (referred to as 90 days) from the offence report, and that the statutory process is intended to be completed in a time-bound manner. The Court also applied the principle that where law prescribes a manner and procedure for doing an act, it must be done in that manner.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the timelines under the CBLR, 2018 as mandatory and "sacrosanct", holding that statutory time limits cannot be diluted on the basis of seriousness of allegations on merits. The Court reasoned that the object of prescribing strict timelines is to prevent indefinite suspension and ensure that action against a customs broker is concluded in a time-bound manner. It further held that Revenue is equally bound by the Regulations and cannot proceed against a broker for alleged violations while itself failing to adhere to prescribed procedures and timelines.

Conclusion: The Court held that proceedings/orders issued in violation of the timelines prescribed under the CBLR, 2018 are vitiated and liable to be set aside. On this basis, the impugned order could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of suspension despite allegations of lapses; relief

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that earlier findings relating to more serious allegations (such as masterminding imports, forgery/manipulation of documents, and being a beneficial owner) had not been sustained, though certain lapses attributable to the customs broker were noticed (including aspects relating to duty payment through another broker and record maintenance). However, the decisive consideration for the present matter was that the statutory procedure and timelines under the CBLR, 2018 were not adhered to, and therefore the impugned order was unsustainable in law. The Court also considered that the broker had already suffered prolonged suspension for over three years and emphasized proportionality in the impact of suspension on livelihood.

Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing restoration of the licence within four weeks from receipt of the order.

---