Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Sai Logistics vs Commissioner, Customs ... on 2 January, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I
Customs Appeal No. 50307 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 06/2020-Commissioner, Customs, Jaipur dated
30.04.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur)
Shri Sai Logistics ....Appellant
G-6, Ratna Sagar, Ground Floor,
MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar,
Jaipur (Raj)-302003
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) ....Respondent
Jodhpur Hqrs: N.C.R. Building, Statute Circle, C-Scheme Jaipur-302005 APPEARANCE:
Shri Arun Goyal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Manish Kumar Shukla, Authorised Representative of the Department CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKAR R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: January 02, 2025 FINAL ORDER NO. 50047/ 2025 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA The order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the Commissioner revoking the Customs Brokers License under regulation 14 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 20181 with forfeiture of whole of the security deposit and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been assailed in this appeal.
2. The main submission advanced by Shri Arun Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant is that while conducting the proceedings the provisions of regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations providing for time limit have been breached and, therefore, the order revoking the license should be set aside for this sole reason.
1 2018 Regulations 2 C/50307/2021
3. To appreciate this submission it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations and they are as follows:
"17. Procedure for revoking license or imposing penalty (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the license or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Custom nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
(2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of the written statement from the Customs Broker, or where no such statement has been received within the time-limit specified in the notice referred to in sub-regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, to inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs Broker.
(3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs as the case may be, shall, in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the inquiry in regard to the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and he may also put any question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs Broker, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position.
(4) The Customs Broker shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines permission to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing.
(5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording his findings thereon submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-
regulation (1).
(6) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall furnish to the Customs Broker a copy of the 3 C/50307/2021 report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and shall require the Custom Broker to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report.
(7) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs Broker, pass such orders as he deems fit either revoking the suspension of the license or revoking the license of the Customs Broker within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5)."
(emphasis supplied)
4. The records indicate that on 03.05.2018 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Jaipur sent an offence report to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur highlighting the role of the appellant, who is a Customs Broker, in respect of certain imports. On the basis of the offence report submitted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Commissioner suspended the Customs Brokers License of the appellant by order dated 15.05.2018. The suspension order was confirmed after a post decisional hearing on 07.06.2018. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 26.06.2019 was issued to the appellant requiring the appellant to explain why the Customs Brokers License should not be suspended with penalty. The records also indicate that the enquiry officer submitted the report on 25.09.2019, after which the order for revocation of the license was passed by the Commissioner on 30.04.2020.
5. It is in the light of the aforesaid facts that it has to be examined whether the procedure contemplated under regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations was followed.
6. Regulations 17(1) of the 2018 Regulation provides that the Commissioner shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report.
4 C/50307/2021
7. In the present case, though there is nothing on the record to indicate the date on which the offence report was received by the Commissioner, but what is important to notice is that the Customs Brokers License of the appellant was suspended on 15.05.2018 after taking note of the offence report submitted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Thus, even if 15.05.2018 is taken as the date on which the offence report was received by the Commissioner, the show cause notice should have been issued to the appellant within 90 days from 15.05.2018. However, as noticed above, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant only on 20.06.2019 which is even after a period of one year from the date of receipt of the offence report.
8. Regulation 17(5) provides that the enquiry report has to be submitted within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of the show cause notice under regulation 17(1).
9. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 26.06.2019 and the enquiry report was submitted on 25.09.2019. There is, therefore, no violation of the provisions of regulation 17(5) of 2018 regulations.
10. Regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations provides that the Commissioner shall, after considering the report of the enquiry and the representation, if any, made by the Customs Broker pass an order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension order or revoking the license of the Customs Broker within 90 days from the date of submission of the enquiry report.
11. In the instant case, the enquiry report was submitted to the Commissioner on 25.09.2019 but the order revoking the Customs Broker License of the appellant was passed on 30.04.2020. This is way beyond the period of 90 days within which the Commissioner was 5 C/50307/2021 required to pass the order. It is, therefore, clear that the time limit contemplated under regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations has not been adhered to.
12. It is for this reason that the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the time limits contemplated under regulation 17(1) and regulation 17(7) have been violated, the order passed by the Commissioner revoking the license should be set aside. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Leo Cargo Services vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport & General, New Delhi2, which decision has placed reliance upon certain earlier decisions to which reference shall be made at the appropriate stage.
13. Shri Manish Kumar Shukla, learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and contended that it does not call for any interference. Learned authorized representative pointed out that various notices have been issued to the appellant under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, the proceedings before the Commissioner got delayed. It is his submission that the impugned order, therefore, should not be set aside for violation of the time limit set out under regulation 17.
14. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered.
15. The facts stated above clearly demonstrate that the time limit set out under regulation 17 (1) of the 2018 Regulations for issuance of the show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report has been violated. It also shows that the time limit set 2 2022(382)E.L.T.30 (Del.) 6 C/50307/2021 out under regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations requiring the Commissioner to pass an appropriate order within 90 days after receipt of the enquiry report has also been violated. The delay in the issuance of the show cause notice under regulation 17(1) is about nine months and the delay in passing the order under regulation 17(7) is also of about more than four months.
16. It has, therefore, to be examined whether violation of these two time limits set out under regulations 17 (1) and 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations would result in setting aside the impugned order.
17. The Delhi High Court, in Leo Cargo Services, examined this precise issue and after examining the provisions of regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations observed as follows:
"11.2 These guidelines are comprehensive and there are timelines set forth for each step that the Customs Broker and Revenue authority take during such proceedings. In terms of Regulation 17(1), a show cause notice is to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. Regulation 17(5) prescribes a time limit of 90 days from the date of issue of show cause notice for submission of an Inquiry Report. Sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 17 once again prescribes that within 90 days from the date of the submission of the Inquiry Report and after consideration thereof, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner shall pass orders either revoking the suspension of licence or revoking the licence of the customs broker.
xxx xxx xxx
12. From a perusal of the record, the following facts are evident. An Offence Report dated 10-5-2018 was received in the office of the Commissioner of Customs on 18-5-2018, on the basis of which the show cause notice dated 10-8-
2018 was issued by the respondent. Although, a copy of the Offence Report was not filed, the show cause notice states that the Offence Report dated 10-5-2018 was received in the office of respondent on 18-5-2018; causing an eight days' internal delay which is not attributable to the appellant. Regulation 17(1) sets forth that the notice "shall" issue within "ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report." If calculated from 10-5-2018, the SCN would have been delayed, however, since the show cause notice states that the document was received only on 18-5-2018, the SCN issued on 10-8-2018 is stated to have been issued within time.
7 C/50307/2021 12.1 Once an Offence Report is issued, the time period as provided in the CBLR commences. The scheme of these Regulations is such that even a delay in one or more sub-regulation(s) of Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 will have a cascading effect on the subsequent timelines, causing a consequential delay at each stage.
12.2 The Inquiry Report submission under sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 17 was to be done within 90 days of the date of issue of SCN i.e. within 90 days from 10-8-2018. However, the Inquiry Report was delayed and only issued beyond the period of 90 days, on 6-12-2018. Hence, there was a delay of 28 days under Regulation 17(5). The proceedings that commenced from 18-5-2018, i.e., the date of receipt of the Offence Report, culminated in the passing of a final order dated 4-2-2019 of cancellation of the customs broker licence of the appellant. 12.3 We would like to state here that the provisions of sub- regulation (4) of Regulation 17 were given a complete go- by, by not allowing the customs broker any opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of these proceedings. The Inquiry Officer has declined the cross- examination of the witnesses by the customs broker on an incorrect understanding of Regulation 17(4) of CBLR, 2018. In view of the fact that the appellant is not pressing this question of law, we do not propose to say anything further in this regard."
(emphasis supplied)
18. The Delhi High Court, thereafter, took notice of the earlier judgments rendered in (i) Overseas Air Cargo Services vs. Commissioner of Customs3; (ii) Impexnet Logistics vs. Commissioner of Customs (General)4; (iii) Santon Shipping Services vs. Commissioner of Customs5; (iv) Harjeet Singh Johar vs. Commissioner of Customs6 and observed as follows:
"14. It can be seen that the timelines as prescribed under various Regulations in CBLR, 2018, have been consistently held by the Courts as mandatory in nature. Each timeline is sacrosanct, and the idea of prescribing a time limit by statute becomes redundant if not adhered to. Therefore, it is not just the overall timeline of 270 days (as set forth in the Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010) that needs to be followed, but 3 Reported as 2016 SCC Online Del 4015= 2016(340)E.L.T. 119 (Del.) 4 Reported as 2016 SCC Online Del 6703= 2016 (338)E.L.T. 347 (Del) 5 Reported as 2017 SCC Online Mad 7084 6 Reported as 2018 SCC Online Del 6650= 2018 (361)E.L.T. 731 (Del) 8 C/50307/2021 also each and every timeline as prescribed in the CBLR, 2018.
14.1 Timelines cannot be overlooked by Revenue by citing reasons on merits. We are bound by the decisions, as discussed above, passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and other High Courts, which state that each timeline is sacrosanct.
Xxx xxx xxx 14.3 In view of the aforegoing discussion and having regard to the consistent view of the Courts across the Board, we are not inclined to take a contrary view. The surviving question of law as framed as set forth in paragraph 3(i) herein is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
15. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 1-10-2019 passed by the CESTAT. Consequently, the proceedings involving revocation of the appellant's custom broker license, forfeiture of its security deposit and imposition of penalty, will also stand set aside."
(emphasis supplied)
19. It would be seen from the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court that as the time limit contemplated under regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations was not adhered to by the department, the order revoking the Customs Broker License was set aside.
20. It would now be useful to examine the decisions that have been referred to in the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court in Leo Cargo Services.
21. In Overseas Air Cargo Services, the Delhi High Court observed as follows:
"16. In Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General) (supra) the Court emphasised the mandatory nature of the CHALR as regards the time limits as under:
6. The time limits in the CHALR, 2004 for issuance of the SCN to the CHA 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 8 April, 2010 clarifying the procedures governing the suspension and revocation of CHA 9 C/50307/2021 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 time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of Issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/DC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations."
7. This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Shankar Clearing & Forwarding v. C.C. (Import & General): 2012 (283) E.LT. 349 (Del.), the order dated 25 April, 2016 passed by this Court in Customs Appeal No. 14/2016 [Commissioner of Customs (General) v. S.K. Logistics) and the order dated 29th April, 2016 in W.P. (C) No. 3071/2015 (Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of Customs (General) New Customs House). The same position has been reiterated by the Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs, SeaPort/Imports, Chennai:
2015 (322) E.L.Τ. 170 (Mad.) and Commissioner v. Eltece Associates - -2016 (334) E.L.T. A50 (Mad.)."
22. In Impexnext Logistics, the Delhi High Court observed as follows:
"6. It is plain that in the case there has been a violation of the time limits set out in regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (corresponding to regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004). In the decision dated May 12, 2016 (Indair Carrier P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2016) 40 GSTR 81 (Delhi) this court held (page 84):
XXX XXX XXX
7. This Court has consistently emphasised the mandatory nature of the aforementioned time limits in several of its decisions. These include the decision in Schankar Clearing and Forwarding v. Commissioner of Customs, (2013) 23 GSTR 114 (Delhi); 2012 (283) E.L.T. 349 (Delhi), the order dated April 25, 2016 10 C/50307/2021 passed by this court in Customs Appeal No. 14 of 2016 (Commissioner of Customs v. S.K. Logistics, (2016) 40 GSTR 72 (Delhi)) and the order dated April 29, 2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3071 of 2015 (Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of Customs, (2016) 40 GSTR 75 (Delhi)). The same position has been reiterated by the Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port/Imports Chennai - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 170 (Mad.) and Commissioner of Customs v. Eltece Associates, 2016 (334) E.L.T. A50 (Mad.)."
7. Recently by an order dated April 24, 2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1734 of 2016 (HLPL Global Logistics P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2016) 40 GSTR 86 (Delhi)) this court reiterated that the time limits in regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013/regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 are sacrosanct.
8. Admittedly, the SCN under the CHALR/CBLR in the present case was issued only on 9th December, 2013, i.e, beyond the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report by the Respondent, i.e., 31st January, 2013. Consequently, all proceedings pursuant thereto are held to be invalid. Further, even the enquiry report was not submitted within a period of 90 days of the issuance of the SCN."
23. In Santon Shipping Services, the Madras High Court observed as follows:
"37. That apart, at least in two Judgments of this Court, where a similar issue came up for consideration, before one of us sitting singly (Rajiv Shakdher, J.), a similar view was taken. The first Judgment is dated 15-12- 2016, which was passed in W.P. No. 37796 of 2016, in the matter of Mis. Sowparnike Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and another wherein, the Judgments referred to hereunder were noticed and followed:
(i) A.M. Ahamed & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai 2014 (309) ELT. 433 (Mad.)
(ii) Masterstroke Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs (1). Chennai 2016 (332) ELT 300 (Mad.)
(iii) Sunil Dutt v. Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH-2016 (337) ELT. 162 (Del)
(iv) Impexnet Logistics v. Commissioner of Customs (General)-2016 (336) ELT. 347 (Del.)
(v) Overseas Air Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi 2016 (340) ELT 119 (Del.)
38. Ultimately, the Court held that the show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period was not sustainable.
11 C/50307/2021
39. Following the said Judgment in Mis. Sowpamika Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and another, one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J.) allowed yet another writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 44344 of 2016, in the matter of Mis. Patriot Freight Logistics System v. Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate-VIII Chennai and two others vide Judgment dated 3-2-2017
40. Also, another Learned Judge of this Court (R. Mahadeven, J.) in 2016 (332) ELT. 300 (Mad.) in the matter of Masterstroke Freight Forwarders P. Ltd v. CC (1). Chennai- 1 after having considered a number of Judgments, has ultimately, concluded as follows:
"50. It is also to be noted that every act of breach by the Broker would entitle the authorities to initiate proceedings from the date of knowledge of the offence It is only if the time limit is strictly followed, swift action can be initiated against the Customs Brokers and the authorities can also be made accountable. The Regulations only contemplate initiation of proceeding by issuance of notice within 90 days. While, making out a prima facie case, the respondents ought to have, without any shadow of doubt, treated the word shall in Regulation 11 as mandatory and not directory. Therefore, when a time limit is prescribed in Regulations, which empowers action in Regulation 18 and procedure in Regulation 20(1), the use of the term shall cannot be termed as directory...... Therefore, by a Circular 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010, the necessity to include a time limit for initiating action was addressed by the Board after field inspection and by a notification dated 8-4-2010, amendments prescribing time period for initiating action and completing proceedings was made. The same was given effect by notification dated 20-1- 2014. Whereas, under the CBLR, 2013 having found the necessity to prescribe a period, the Central Board, the statutory authority had included the same in the Regulations itself, when they were brought into force. Therefore, when a time limit is prescribed in Regulations, which empowers action under Regulation 18 by following the procedure in Regulation 20(1), the use of the term "shall"
cannot be termed as directory. Under such circumstances, the rule can only be termed as mandatory."
41. In view of the aforesaid Judgments, in our opinion, the issue as to whether the limitation prescribed e 90 days period, under Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004, is mandatory or not, is no more res integra.
42. Once the limitation prescribed is mandatory, as has been declared by the courts of law, it cannot be stated that, because of the other issues, that is the merit of the case, this mandatory requirement of the limitation can be ignored.
12 C/50307/2021
43. It is not the case of the 1st respondent that the 90 days limitation contemplated under Regulation 22 (1), is directory. It is also not the case of the 1st respondent that the show cause notice was issued within the limitation period of 90 days from the date of offence report.
44. Since the offence report was dated 22-9-2010 and the show cause notice, admittedly, was issued only on 18-11- 2011, there can be no doubt that the said show cause notice was issued well beyond the period of limitation of 90 days
45. Whatever be the claim and counter claim on the merits, in this appeal can, in our view, they get shadowed by the failure on the part of the revenue in not acting in time, by issuing the show cause notice, within the period as contemplated under Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004.
46. Therefore, we are of the considered view, and in fact have no hesitation to hold so that, the Revenue has not issued the show cause notice dated 18-11-2011 within the period of limitation prescribed under Regulation 22(1) CHALR, 2004 and thus, the consequent proceedings involving revocations of the appellant's CHA license and forfeiture of its security deposit, is unlawful....."
24. In Harjeet Singh Johar, the Delhi High Court observed as follows:
"5. The Delhi High Court in Overseas Air Cargo Service v. Commissioner of Customs, 2016 (340) E.LT. 119 (Del.), Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Customs (General) - 2016 (337) ELT. 41 (Del.) and Commissioner of Customs v. S.K. Logistics-2016 (337) E.LT. 39 (Del.), has held that the time period of 90 days mentioned in Regulation 20(1) of the 2013 Regulations is mandatory and sacrosanct. A show cause notice issued after 90 days of receipt of the offence report, is invalid. In other words, if the show cause notice was not issued within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report, the proceedings under Regulation 20 would be null and void. We are bound by these decisions passed by co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court.
XXX XXX XXX
10. Decision in A.M. Ahamed (supra), relates to Regulation 20 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 ('2004 Regulations', for short) which were applicable prior to enactment and enforcement of 2013 Regulations...
"20. The time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) has to be understood in the context of the strict time schedule prescribed in various portions of the Regulations. Regulation 20(2), for instance, entities the Commissioner, to suspend the licence of an agent, 13 C/50307/2021 in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. Regulation 22(3) prescribes a time limit of 15 days. Regulation 22(1) prescribes a time limit within which action is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation 22(5). Therefore, considering the fact that the whole proceedings are to be commenced within a time limit and also concluded within a time frame, I am of the view that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 8-5-2010 with a copy marked to the first Respondent should be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report. Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date. If so calculated, the impugned proceedings have obviously been initiated beyond the period of 90 days."
17. In view of the aforesaid position, we record that the suspension order dated 31-3-2017 was based upon the offence report, and therefore the show cause notice under Regulation 20, dated 14-7-2017, would be clearly barred by the limitation as it was issued more than 90 days after the offence report was submitted."
25. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention advanced by the learned authorized representative appearing for the department that the breach of the time limits set out in regulation 17 of 2018 Regulations would not result in setting aside of the order revoking the Customs Broker License of the appellant. The time limit, as has been held in the aforesaid decisions, has to be complied with and any breach would result in setting aside the final order.
25. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
(Order dictated in the Open Court) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shenaj