2021 (4) TMI 1107 - HC - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker - penalty under Regulation 18 r/w Regulation 14 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) for alleged violation of Regulations 10(a) and 10(n) of the CBLR - whether the timelines are mandatory or directory? - HELD THAT - Once the limitation prescribed is held to be mandatory, then the force of that mandate would have to be adhered to strictly. Moreover and additionally, the Central Board of Excise and Customs in Circular No.9/2010-Cus., dated 08.04.2010 in F.No.502/5/2008-Cus VI has set out an overall time limit for completion of suspension proceedings against a license holder - Evidently, the purpose is to ensure that suspension is not indefinite and proceedings are completed promptly so as to cause the least prejudice to the parties concerned. In this case this constitutes the fourth violation of the time limits. In the case dealt with by the Division Bench in SANTON SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , there was a violation only of one timeline whereas, as noticed by me earlier, in the present case the time lines set out have been violated not once, but on four occasions. Thus, the impugned order has no legs to stand, particularly, since there is no dispute on the sequence of events or the dates on which the events have transpired. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Violation of timelines under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) for imposing penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Timeline under Regulation 17(1)
The petitioner challenged the order imposing a penalty under Regulation 18 r/w Regulation 14 of the CBLR for alleged violations. The Court examined the timelines set out under Regulation 17(1) where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner must issue a notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offense report. In this case, the notice was issued beyond the stipulated timeline, constituting a violation of Regulation 17(1).

Issue 2: Violation of Timeline under Regulation 17(5)
Regulation 17(5) mandates the Assessing Authority to prepare an inquiry report within 90 days from the issuance of the notice under Regulation 17(1). However, in this case, the inquiry report was prepared beyond the prescribed timeline, violating Regulation 17(5).

Issue 3: Violation of Timeline for Passing Order
Furthermore, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is required to pass an order within 90 days from the submission of the inquiry report. The impugned order was passed beyond the stipulated timeline, constituting another violation under Regulation 17.

Issue 4: Mandatory vs. Directory Timelines
The legal question raised was whether the timelines under Regulation 17 are mandatory or directory. Previous decisions by the Court and a Division Bench highlighted the importance of adhering strictly to the prescribed timelines, emphasizing the mandatory nature of these time limits to ensure prompt completion of proceedings.

Issue 5: Circular Setting Overall Time Limit
A circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs emphasized the importance of completing suspension proceedings promptly to minimize prejudice to the parties involved. The violation of time limits in the present case, occurring on four occasions, led to the quashing of the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The Court found multiple violations of the timelines set out under the CBLR, leading to the quashing of the impugned order. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of these timelines and the necessity of adhering to them strictly to ensure timely and fair proceedings. The writ petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.