TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulaions, 2018 (CBLR, 2018), allegedly for violation of Regulation 10(d), (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 different exporters in July/August, 2020. Based on an allegation that the exporters do 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 Exporters were not found to be in existence at their declared places of business. A final suspension order was passed on 8th November, 2021 which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Pursuant to an order passed by the Tribunal, the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imeline being mandatory, was raised by the petitioner and considered by the adjudicating authority and at para 15, page 116 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 under Regulation 17(7) had expired and the order was being passed beyond the prescribed time by relying on the aforesaid judgment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....melines 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 there is 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 under Regulation 10(d), (m), (n) and (q) of the CBLR, 2018, has any application in the present case as the same is evident from the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Principal Commissioner of Customs reported in 2020 (373) ELT 323 (Cal) which according to me is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icense. 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 directory or mandatory and this Writ Petition on this legal issue should be heard on affidavits by the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am also of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for an interim order for the following reasons : 1) The Inquiry Officer himself has gi....