ORDER :

Both these writ petitions are filed by M/s. PL Shipping and Logistics Limited. The first Writ Petition in W.P.No.29141 of 2016 is filed, challenging the order of interim suspension of the operation of Customs Broker's License issued in proceedings dated 08.08.2016. The second Writ Petition in W.P.No.38198 of 2016 is filed, challenging the Show Cause Notice issued in proceedings dated 28.09.2016.

2. Pursuant to the interim order granted against the order of interim suspension, the petitioner is continuing his operations in the respective Ports. Under these circumstances, both the writ petitions were taken together for passing a common order.

3. The writ petitioner is a Public Limited Company, has been favoured with Customs Broker's License issued by the respondent. The petitioners operate as Customs Brokers at the Port of Chennai, Kochi, Coimbatore, Tuticorin and Mangalore, by extension of their Customs Brokers Licence under intimation in Form C of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations']. The facts regarding the operation of the petitioner in the Ports mentioned above are not disputed by the respondents. Thus, those facts narrated deserves no further consideration and the issue raised in these writ petitions are that the issuance of order of interim suspension and the Show Cause Notice is well within the provisions of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations or not.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the initiation of action against the petitioner is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Regulation and therefore, the interim suspension as well as the Show Cause Notice issued after a lapse of 90 days is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence report was of the year 2015 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 16.09.2015 and therefore, the interim order of suspension as well as the impugned Show Cause Notice issued in the year 2016 after a lapse of the prescribed time limit cannot be sustained at all.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of A.M.Ahamed & Co., Vs. Commissioner, reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T.433 (Mad). In the said judgment, it is held that adherence of time limits contemplated under the regulations are mandatory and in the event of not initiating action within the time limit prescribed, the actions are liable to be set aside. It is contended that the said judgment was taken by way of an appeal and the Hon'ble Division Bench has also confirmed the judgment and therefore, the proposition became final in this regard.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the other judgments on the same line and more specifically, in the case of Sabin Logistics Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII, reported in 2019 (367) E.L.T. 200 (Mad), wherein this Court held as follows:

“19. In the case of MKS Shipping Agencies (supra), a Division Bench of this Court hearing a writ appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs Duty, Tuticorin challenging an order of the learned Single Judge concluding that the time lines set out in Regulations 19 and 20 were mandatory and sacrosanct, dismissed the appeal holding that there was no irregularity in the conclusion of learned Single Judge. At paragraph no. 9 the Division Bench states thus:

‘9. Insofar as the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the impugned notice is a show cause notice, it cannot be challenged by filing a Writ Petition and remedy open to the respondent/Writ Petitioner is to submit his response and in the event of any adverse order, he can file an appeal before CESTAT Act, the said submission lacks merits and substance for the reason that admittedly, the impugned show cause notice has been issued beyond the period of ninety days from the receipt of offence report and since the relevant statutory regulation as well as