TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash the show cause notice dated 10.01.2025 issued under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 and quash the impugned Inquiry Report dated 09.04.2025, on the premise that the said show cause notice does not comply with the limitation contained in Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 for issuance of Show cause notice. 2. Brief facts: 2.1. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in customs clearance work since 2015. Petitioner would submit that present show cause notice is concerned with investigation carried out, concerning export of goods made vide 108 shipping bills during the period from 25.12.2016 to 04.11.2018 by M/s.Heeba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai viz., RMG goods, home and kitchen accessories, bags, kids wear etc. meant for export to USA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 30.03.2014 i.e., on or before 29.06.2024. However, Show cause notice had been issued on 10.01.2025. He would submit that in terms of Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018, Show cause notice ought to be issued within 90 days from the receipt of the Offence Report, the same has been found to be mandatory by this Court on more than one occasion. However, the Show cause notice had been issued on 10.01.2025 i.e., beyond 90 days from the date of receipt of Offence Report, thereby vitiating the proceeding. 3. Heard both sides. Perused material on record. 4. It may be relevant to refer to Rule 17(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, which reads as under: "The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not use the expression "offence report", we have to presume that a report indicating the availability of any one of the above 3 ingredients should be construed as an offence report. Consequently, the date of knowledge gained by the Commissioner, by means of any communication, be it show cause notice or order-in-original, has to be construed as the date of receipt of the offence report. Otherwise, a report about anyone of the above 3 ingredients can be sent at any time, even after five years or ten years. 19. The Regulations not only fail to prescribe what an offence report is and how it is to be sent, but they do not also prescribe the person competent to sent it. In such circumstances, the interpretation sought to be given by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... licence holder and completion of the inquiry within 90 days of issuance of such SCN are sacrosanct. The aforesaid time limits were engrafted into Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 by a Notification No. 30/2010- Cus. (N.T.) dated 8th April, 2010. Simultaneously, the CBEC issued Circular No. 9/2010 dated 8th April 2010 clarifying the procedures governing the suspension and revocation of CHA licence. In para 7.1 of the said Circular, it was noted as under: "7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an overall t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt holds that the impugned order dated 10th April, 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Delhi revoking the CHA license of the appellant to be unsustainable in law. The said order and the consequential order dated 16th September, 2015 of the CESTAT affirming it are hereby set aside. iii) Santon Shipping Services vs. The Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2017 (10) TMI 621 (Mad). After referring to decisions on the subject, it was held that strict adherence to the timelines prescribed in Regulation 17 of CBLR is mandatory, and failure would prove fatal to validity of proceeding. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "41. In view of the aforesaid Judgments, in our opinion, the issue as to whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on adherence to the timelines fixed under regulation 17(5) and (7) of CBLR, 2018, which are mandatory in nature." 7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that counter-affidavit has been filed and they have explained the reasons for the delay, wherein inter alia it has been submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the timeline is mandatory requires a revisit inasmuch as before finding a particular provision to be mandatory or directory, the test is to examine whether non-adherence or non-compliance to the provision results in visiting with a consequence. He would also place reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in M/s.Cargo Care International ....