TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, revoked the licence and forfeited security deposit under regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 while imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000 under regulation 14 Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. 2. It is on record that, consequent upon the report of the enquiry authority dated 11th July 2023, disagreement memo dated 28th April 2023 was issued by the licensing authority, as prelude to the detriment and penalty set out supra, on the revised findings thereof. 3. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorized Representative. 4. In addition to their contention on merit, it has been submitted by Learned Counsel that not only had the disagreement memo, having been issued only on 28th April 2023, taken more than three months after receipt of enquiry report to be finalized but also the impugned order which took another six months. Learned Counsel submitted that no justification was offered for such delay of fifteen months from date of inquiry report in issuing the impugned order. 5. It is seen that the enquiry report was submitted on the 11th July 2023 consequent upon the show cause notice dated 6th September 2021. The impugned order ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Customs Brokers on account of non-adherence to the time limit. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the said CESTAT West Zonal Bench, Mumbai delivered in Appeal No. C/87322/15 [2017 (357) ELT 1017 (Tribunal)] in case of M/s. Maakrupa Forwarders Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, dated 18 October, 2016. Perusal of the said judgment, would reveal that Revenue had taken 1221 days to complete the inquiry for which a period of 270 days is prescribed in CBLR, 2013 and in this backdrop, the Tribunal observed that due to inordinate delay of exceptional nature in completing the proceedings, fundamental right of work is being denied to the appellant and it was also observed that the Customs Brokers who are unscrupulous, get the advantage of the delay and people who are not guilty would continue to suffer the suspension and revocation on account of delay by revenues due to lack of responsibility. The said judgment of the CESTAT reflects a extreme situation and the data which was placed before the Tribunal revealed that inquiries had been pending for more than five years and in this backdrop, the Tribunal commented about the inordinate delay. This is what precisely i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the Customs House Agent, depriving them of their means of livelihood and it was observed that the purpose of prescribed time limit was to safeguard the interest of the Customs Broker and smooth import and export of goods. By relying on a celebrated principle, when a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed in such a manner, the use of the word "shall" in the Regulation has been construed as mandatory. With due respect to the finding so recorded in the judgment of the Madras Court in case of Masterstroke Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. v. C.C.(I), Chennai-I, reported in 2016 (332) ELT 300 (Madras) delivered by the Learned Single Judge, the parameters of construing a provision as mandatory or directory, when it deals with a discharge of a public duty and a resultant consequence has not been specifically taken into consideration. The salutary principle, whether statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner and time within which the duty shall be performed, the injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescription, is a relevant factor for holding such provision only as directory has been complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oved to be fatal to the outcome of the inquiry. Based on these observations the Tribunal had held the Regulation is directory in nature. However, in the present judgment which is impugned before us, the CESTAT has taken a view contrary to its earlier view in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and after referring to certain precedents where a view was taken that the regulations are mandatory delivered by the Tribunal itself, the Tribunal was pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order being not sustainable and allowed the appeals. It is to be noted that the Member Judicial (Ramesh Nair) who is a party to the judgment delivered by the said CESTAT in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the timelimit contained in Regulation 20 cannot be construed to be mandatory and is held to be directory. As it is already observed above that though the time line framed in the Regulation need to be rigidly applied, fairness would demand that when such time limit is crossed, the period subsequently consumed for completing the inquiry should be justified by giving reasons and the causes on account of which the timelimit....