Mandatory time limit under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations invalidates orders passed beyond the prescribed period.

The Madras HC held that the 90-day timeline under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is mandatory, not directory. As the offence report, show cause notice, inquiry report, representation and final order were undisputed, the only issue was whether the impugned order was made after expiry of the prescribed period. Following its earlier view on Regulation 17, the Court rejected the contrary approach adopted elsewhere and set aside the order as time-barred. The writ petition was allowed because an order passed beyond the statutory timeline is invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order passed under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 was valid when it was issued beyond the stipulated period after the inquiry report.

Analysis: The dates relating to the offence report, show cause notice, inquiry report, representation and the impugned order were undisputed. The challenge was confined to the expiry of the 90-day period contemplated under Regulation 17(7). The Court followed its earlier view that the timelines prescribed in Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 are mandatory and declined to treat the provision as merely directory on the basis of the cited contrary view from another High Court.

Conclusion: The impugned order, having been passed beyond the prescribed timeline, was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: The time limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is mandatory, and an order passed beyond that period is liable to be invalidated.

---