Customs broker licence revocation proceedings missed CBLR 2018 reg. 17 deadlines; revocation, deposit forfeiture and penalty quashed.

The dominant issue was whether revocation of a customs broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty could be sustained despite breach of mandatory timelines under CBLR, 2018. The HC held that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the offence report in violation of reg. 17(1); the enquiry report was submitted beyond 90 days from the show cause notice contrary to reg. 17(5); and the final order was not passed within the stipulated period under reg. 17(7). Treating these regulatory timelines as binding, the HC found the proceedings vitiated in law and quashed the revocation, forfeiture, and penalty, allowing the petition.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the timelines prescribed under Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 are mandatory and require strict adherence.

(ii) Whether non-compliance with the timelines under Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) vitiates the disciplinary action and warrants quashing of the order revoking licence, forfeiting security deposit, and imposing penalty.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Mandatory nature of timelines under Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) of CBLR, 2018

Legal framework: The Court examined Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, each prescribing a 90-day timeline for successive steps in the disciplinary process (issuance of show cause notice, submission of enquiry report, and passing of final order).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that it has consistently taken the view that the timelines under the CBLR, 2018 are mandatory. It rejected the respondent's contention that the timelines are only directory on the ground that settled law of this Court requires strict compliance. The Court further reasoned that decisions of other High Courts treating timelines as directory have only persuasive value and do not displace this Court's consistent interpretation.

Conclusion: Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) prescribe mandatory timelines that must be strictly followed.

Issue (ii): Effect of breach of mandatory timelines-validity of the impugned revocation/forfeiture/penalty order

Legal framework: Applying the mandatory timelines under Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) of the CBLR, 2018, the Court assessed whether the disciplinary steps were completed within the prescribed 90-day limits.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the show cause notice was issued beyond 90 days from the date of the offence report, constituting a breach of Regulation 17(1). It also found that the enquiry report was submitted beyond 90 days from the date of show cause notice, rendering it bad in law under Regulation 17(5). Further, the final order was held contrary to Regulation 17(7), as it was not passed within the stipulated 90-day period contemplated by that provision. Since these breaches related to mandatory timelines, the Court concluded that the foundational procedural requirements for the disciplinary action were not met, and the resulting order could not stand.

Conclusion: Non-adherence to the mandatory timelines under Regulations 17(1), 17(5) and 17(7) vitiated the proceedings; accordingly, the order revoking the licence, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing penalty was quashed.

---