TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Mandatory time limit under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations invalidates orders passed beyond the prescribed period.</h1> 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 ... Mandatory time-limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7) under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations - order passed beyond the stipulated period after the inquiry report. Regulation 17(7) time-limit - Mandatory procedural compliance - HELD THAT: - The Court proceeded on the admitted dates and found that the impugned order had been passed beyond 90 days from the submission of the inquiry report. Following its earlier view that the timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of the CBLR, 2018 are mandatory, and reiterating the position stated in Santon Shipping Services vs. The Commissioner of Customs, [2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Court declined to accept the contrary view relied on from the Kerala High Court [2024 (12) TMI 753 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Since the final order was made beyond the period stipulated under Regulation 17(7), it could not be sustained. [Paras 6, 7] The impugned order was set aside as having been passed beyond the mandatory period prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of the CBLR, 2018. Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order was set aside on the sole ground that it was passed beyond the mandatory time-limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
