IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

and

W.M.P.No.29616 of 2025

M/s.Shriwin Shipping & Logistics,

Door No.76/80, Moore Street,

Chennai – 600 001,

Rep. by its Partner Mr.G.Nathavel ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner of Customs (General),

Chennai Customs Zone, No.60, Rajaji Salai,

Custom House, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the Order in Original No.113852/2025 dated 08.07.2025 passed by the respondent herein and to quash the same, in so far as, the said impugned order had been passed without jurisdiction and authority of law and without following the due procedures of law and the various Regulations under CBLR, 2018 and in gross violation to the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner

under the Constitution.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskaran For Respondent : Ms.Pooja Jain Junior Standing Counsel *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the respondent, (a) revoking the license of the petitioner (b) forfeiture of the security deposit amount made by the petitioner and (c) imposing penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed in violation of regulations 17(1), 17(5), 17(7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. According to the petitioner, the timeline fixed under the aforesaid regulations have to be strictly followed by the respondent and since the same has not been followed, the impugned orders have to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitioner’s contentions that the timeline fixed under the CBLR, 2018 are mandatory, relies upon the following authorities :-

(a) Syed Khalid Ahmed Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) & Anr. rendered by this Court on 21.03.2025 in W.P.Nos.577 & 581 of 2025;

(b) M/s.Sea Queen Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs Chennai VIII (General) & Anr.

rendered on 18.09.2025 in W.P.No.2724 of 2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the following documents in support of the petitioner’s contention to the timelines as per the CBLR, 2018 have not been adhered to by the respondent before passing the impugned order :-

(a) the offence report was issued on 04.10.2023, however the show cause notice was issued only on 31.01.2024, which is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under regulation 17(1) of the CBLR, 2018;

(b) the enquiry report is dated 19.02.2025, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 31.01.2024 and since the enquiry report was submitted beyond the period of 90 days from the date of show cause notice, the enquiry report is bad in law as per regulation 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018;

(c) the enquiry report is dated 19.02.2025, however the impugned order is dated 08.07.2025, which is also contrary to regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018 as the said regulation stipulates that an order has to be passed within a period of 90 days from the date of offence report;

(d) circular No.9 of 2010 has not been adhered to by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the said circular prescribes an overall time limit of nine months for completing the proceedings from the date of offence report. According to the petitioner, since the same has not been done as seen from the impugned order, the impugned order has to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has placed on record her written submissions as well as the dates and events. She would submit that though the offence report is dated 04.10.2023, but the same was received by the respondent only on 10.10.2023. She would also submit that the supporting documents for the offence report dated 04.