2025 (4) TMI 529 - HC - Customs

Time limitation for issuance of SCN - Failure to follow 90 days time limit prescribed under Regulation 17 (5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 - HELD THAT - The respondents have not disputed that there was a delay on their part in complying with the timelines fixed in the CBLR 2018 under regulation 17. However the only contention before this Court is that those timelines are only directory in nature and therefore for non compliance of timelines the petitioner cannot seek for quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 as well as the impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022. This Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the Division Bench has categorically held that similar regulations applicable to Customs House Agents viz. CHALR 2004 are mandatory and strict timelines will have to be necessarily followed as per the said regulations. Conclusion - This Court is of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice as well as the impugned inquiry report have to be quashed on the ground of non adherence to the timelines fixed under regulation 17 (5) and (7) of CBLR 2018 which are mandatory in nature. The impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 and the impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022 are hereby quashed and these writ petitions are allowed.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this judgment involve the adherence to the timelines prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) for the issuance of a show cause notice and the submission of an inquiry report. Specifically, the court examined whether the timelines set forth in Regulation 17 (5) and Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 are mandatory or directory in nature. The petitioner challenged the delay in proceedings, arguing that the non-compliance with these timelines should result in the quashing of the impugned show cause notice and inquiry report.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Adherence to Timelines under CBLR, 2018

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The relevant regulations under scrutiny are Regulation 17 (5) and Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018. Regulation 17 (5) mandates that an inquiry report must be submitted within 90 days from the issuance of a show cause notice. Regulation 17 (7) requires that final orders be passed within 90 days from the date of submission of the inquiry report. The petitioner relied on prior judgments, notably a Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, which held similar timelines under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004) as mandatory.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court adhered to the precedent set by the Division Bench in Santon Shipping Services, affirming that the timelines under the CBLR, 2018 are mandatory. The Court emphasized that the decision in Santon Shipping Services had attained finality and was binding. It also noted that a learned Single Judge had previously followed this precedent in KTR Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Chennai, further reinforcing the mandatory nature of the timelines.

Key evidence and findings:

The Court acknowledged that the respondents did not dispute the delay in complying with the timelines prescribed by the CBLR, 2018. The show cause notice was issued on 28.03.2022, and the inquiry report was submitted on 17.06.2022, exceeding the 90-day period mandated by Regulation 17 (5). Furthermore, no final orders were passed within the 90 days from the inquiry report submission, as required by Regulation 17 (7).

Application of law to facts:

The Court applied the legal framework established in prior judgments to the facts of the case, concluding that the failure to adhere to the mandatory timelines warranted the quashing of the impugned show cause notice and inquiry report.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The respondents argued that the timelines under the CBLR, 2018 are directory rather than mandatory, citing a decision from the Bombay High Court. However, the Court dismissed this argument, reiterating its obligation to follow the binding precedent set by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which held the timelines as mandatory.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the failure to comply with the mandatory timelines under Regulation 17 (5) and Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 necessitated the quashing of the impugned show cause notice and inquiry report.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that the timelines specified in the CBLR, 2018 are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. This holding aligns with the precedent established in the Santon Shipping Services case, which has been consistently followed by the Madras High Court.

Core principles established:

The judgment reinforces the principle that regulatory timelines, when deemed mandatory by precedent, must be strictly followed to ensure procedural fairness and accountability in administrative proceedings.

Final determinations on each issue:

The Court determined that the impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 and the impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022 should be quashed due to non-compliance with the mandatory timelines under the CBLR, 2018. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed.

← Previous Next →