Madras High Court
Shri. Syed Khalid Ahmed vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.700, 701, 705 and 707 of 2025
Shri. Syed Khalid Ahmed ... Petitioner
In both W.Ps.
Vs.
1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General),
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Inquiry Officer / Assistance Commissioner of Customs,
R & I Section (Airport), New Custom House,
Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027. ... Respondents
In both W.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for the
records pertaining to the impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 in
F.No.R-245/CBS (OS. No.242) issued by the 1st respondent and impugned
Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022 submitted in F.No.R-245/CBS (OS.
No.242) by the second respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner
In both W.Ps. : Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
For Respondents
In both W.Ps. : Mr. J. Vasu
Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned show
cause notice dated 28.03.2022 and the impugned Inquiry Report dated
17.06.2022 issued by the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice
dated 28.03.2022 as well as the impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022
on the following grounds:
a) The 90 days time limit prescribed under Regulation 17 (5) of the
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) has not been
followed by the respondents;
b) The total time period to complete the proceedings against the
customs broker as per the regulations of CBLR, 2018 is 270 days from the
date of receipt of the offence report. In the present case, two years have
gone by and the proceedings are yet to be concluded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
3. The petitioner is a customs broker. His licence is sought to be
revoked under the impugned proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner
drew the attention of this Court to the following documents, which are filed
along with these writ petitions:
a) Impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 issued by the first
respondent;
b) Reply to impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 sent by the
petitioner;
c) Impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022 submitted by the
second respondent;
d) Letter from the first respondent to the petitioner dated 18.11.2024
forwarding the impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022 submitted by the
second respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this
Court to the relevant regulations of CBLR, 2018 viz., regulations 17 (3), (5)
and (7) and would submit that the time lines fixed under the aforesaid
regulations have not been adhered to by the respondents. He would submit
that the impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022 as per the regulation 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
(5) will have to be submitted within a period of 90 days from the date of the
issuance of the show cause notice. According to him, since the Inquiry
Report was submitted only on 18.11.2024 as seen from the letter issued by
the first respondent to the petitioner, the respondents have not complied
with regulation 17 (5) of the CBLR, 2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per
regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018, final orders, either revoking the
suspension of the licence or revoking the licence of the customs broker, will
have to be passed within 90 days from the date of submission of the report
by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner
Customs under sub-regulation (5). According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, till date, no final orders have been passed and therefore,
regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 has also not been adhered to by the
respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court
to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 13.10.2017 passed in
C.M.A.No.730 of 2016 in the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
Commissioner of Customs, wherein similar regulations pertaining to
Customs House Agent viz., regulation 22 (1) of the Customs House Agents
Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004) was held to be mandatory.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to a
decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ
petitions in the case of KTR Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Cus., Chennai reported in 2020 (371) 685 (MAD.),
following the aforesaid Judgment by holding that CBLR, 2018 is
mandatory. Therefore, he would submit that timelines fixed under the
regulations are mandatory and necessarily the same will have to be followed
by the respondents. Having not followed the strict timelines, which are
mandatory in nature, the impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2022 as
well as the impugned Inquiry Report dated 17.06.2022 will have to be
quashed.
7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the regulations of CBLR, 2018 are only directory in nature and
are not mandatory. He would rely upon a decision rendered by the Bombay
high Court for the said propositions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
a) The dates and events referred in the affidavit filed in support of
these writ petitions by the petitioner have not been disputed by the
respondents as seen from counter filed before this Court.
8. Though the learned standing counsel for the respondents would
rely upon a decision of the Bombay High Court to support his contention
that CBLR, 2018 are only directory, this Court is bound by the Division
Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Santon Shipping
Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs referred to supra, wherein
similar regulations were held to be mandatory. Admittedly, the decision
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.10.2017 in
C.M.A.No.730 of 2016 in the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The
Commissioner of Customs referred to supra has attained finality.
9. The learned Single Judge of this Court has also followed the
aforesaid Division Bench Judgment of this Court in his decision rendered in
the case of KTR Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.,
Chennai reported in 2020 (371) 685 (MAD.) by holding that CBLR, 2018
are mandatory in nature and therefore, the timelines fixed under those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
regulations will have to be strictly followed.
10. As observed earlier, 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.
11. As observed earlier, this Court is bound by the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court dated 13.10.2017 passed in C.M.A.No.730 of
2016 in the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of
Customs, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
12. The learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, as observed
supra, has also followed the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the
case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs,
referred to supra and has quashed the show cause notice and inquiry reports
on the ground that the respondents did not adhere to the timelines fixed
under the CBLR, 2018.
13. For the foregoing reasons, 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.
14. Accordingly, 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.
21.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
To
1.The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General),
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Inquiry Officer / Assistance Commissioner of Customs,
R & I Section (Airport), New Custom House,
Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
W.P. Nos.577 and 581 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.700, 701, 705 and 707 of 2025
21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 02:06:22 pm )
