https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331862 A revocation of a CHA licence under Regulation 22 could not stand because the inquiry report was submitted far beyond the prescribed 90-day period, and the use of "shall" made the timeline mandatory. The Revenue's reliance on a different provision in the 2013 Customs Broker Licensing Regulations was rejected because it operated in a distinct procedural setting and used different language. Once the delay was found fatal, the merits of the alleged misconduct were not examined, and the revocation and forfeiture were set aside with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2016 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331862 A revocation of a CHA licence under Regulation 22 could not stand because the inquiry report was submitted far beyond the prescribed 90-day period, and the use of "shall" made the timeline mandatory. The Revenue's reliance on a different provision in the 2013 Customs Broker Licensing Regulations was rejected because it operated in a distinct procedural setting and used different language. Once the delay was found fatal, the merits of the alleged misconduct were not examined, and the revocation and forfeiture were set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331862