TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018), allegedly for violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) of CBLR, 2018. Facts in brief relevant to this case are hereunder. The petitioner, as a customs broker, had handled cargo on behalf of one Das International Exim Private Limited (Exporter) in July/August, 2020. Based on an allegation that the exporter does not exist, an interim suspension order was passed based on the alleged offence report. A reference was made to a GST Enquiry Report where the Exporter was not found to be in existence at the declared place of business. A final suspension order was passed on 10th November, 2021 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court as the Tribunal was not functioning at the rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted under Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018 deserves to be set aside on that ground alone. Petitioner submits that the issue of timeline being mandatory, was raised by the petitioner and considered by the adjudicating authority and at para 22, page 246 of the Writ Petition being impugned order dated 11th July, 2022 the adjudicating authority referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Vs Unison Clearing Private Limited where it was held that the timeline under CBLR, 2018 is directory and relying on the said judgment, he proceeded and passed the impugned order and as such, it is evident that the Respondent No. 1 was conscious of the fact that the time prescribed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Adjudicating Authority has misconstrued the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and has merely come to a conclusion that timelines under the aforesaid Regulation are directory and proceeded to pass the order beyond the period of time of limitation of 90 days, rendering the timelines nugatory and otiose. In any event since the impugned order neither records any reason nor is there any justification for delay in passing the impugned order revoking the license of the petitioner beyond the period of 90 days from the date of submission of the Inquiry Report, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and/or quashed on that ground alone. That apart, the order impugned is also, otherwise, not sustainable as none of the grounds provided unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which is 90 days from the date of receipt of inquiry report is directory and not mandatory. He further defends the impugned order on the issue of delay in passing the impugned order beyond the expiry of 90 days as per regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 by contending that delay in passing the impugned order was contributory on the part of the petitioner who sought adjudication twice during the course of impugned proceedings for revocation of petitioner's license. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in support of this proposition of law that the timeline prescribed under Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 is directory and not mandatory, relies on a judgment of this Court dated 30th August, 2016, in the case of Asian Freight Vs Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oved". It also appears from record that the order of suspension of petitioner's license though it was stayed by the order of the Tribunal on 23rd August, 2022 but before such order of stay and during the pendency of the stay application before the Tribunal the respondent authority passed the impugned order of revocation of petitioner's license. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the issues involved in this Writ Petition is a pure question of law with regard to interpretation of Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 and as to whether time prescribed under the said Regulation for completion of the proceedings and passing of the final order within 90 days from the date of receipt of inquiry report is dire....