Time Limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7), CBLR ,2018 to be strictly Observed While Passing Orders: Calcutta HC [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has, staying the permanent suspension of the petitioner’s Customs Broker License, held that the time limit prescribed by Regulation 17(7), CBLR, 2018, is to be strictly observedby the authorities in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them by the same.

The aforesaid observation was made by the court when a writ petition was filed before it by the petitioner, a custom broker, challenging the impugned order of revocation dated 11th July, 2022,passed by the Principal Commissioner Of Customs, resulting in a revocation of the petitioner’s Customs Broker License.

The issue involved in the writ being the legality of the exercise of powers by the respondent under Regulation 17 (7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018), in violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) of CBLR, 2018, the submission of the aggrieved petitioner was that the impugned order of revocation of his license having been passed beyond the period of 90 days as mandated under Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018 , the same deserves to be set aside on that ground alone.

Opposing the writ petition, the claim of the respondents however was that the order in question revoking the license of the petitioner,will not be subject to the prescribedlimitation of 90 days period under the said regulation, the reason for the same being that is directory and not mandatory , and further that such a delay beingcontributory on the part of the petitioner who sought adjudication twice during the course of impugned proceedings for his license revocation, the department can’t be blamed for the delay caused.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, staying the impugned order of the petioner’s license revocation and finally listing the matter for final hearing in the monthly list of January 2023, JusticeMd. Nizamuddin observed as follows:

“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 given his finding that the allegation of violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) of CBLR, 2018 against the petitioner as “not proved”.
2. Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering the judgment of the Bombay High Court upon which adjudicating authority has relied on the timeline as prescribed under Regulation 17 (7) of the aforesaid regulation has held the same as mandatory.
3. The Tribunal has already stayed the permanent suspension of the petitioner’s license by its order dated 23rd August, 2022 which has not been stayed or interfered by any higher forum till date and the said stay order by the Tribunal is still existing.

Thus, Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and submission of the parties and discussion made on the impugned order of revocation of petitioner’s license dated 11th July, 2022, the same shall remain stayed till 31st January, 2023 or until further order, whichever is earlier.

Respondents shall file affidavit-in-opposition to the Writ Petition within four weeks after Puja Vacation. Petitioner to file reply thereto, if any, within two weeks thereafter. List this matter for ‘Final Hearing’ in the monthly list of January, 2023”

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.