IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE AND WMP NO. 43648 OF 2025 M/s.Sunway Logistics, 1st Floor, C. Portion No.1, Moore Street Chennai 600 001.

Rep. By Its Partner Mr.B.Sundar Raman Petitioner(s)

Vs The Commissioner Of Customs (General), Chennai Customs Zone, 60 Rajaji Salai Custom House, Chennai 600 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent herein, pertaining to Suspension Order No.38/ 2025 dated 10.10.2025 in F. No GEN/CB/ACTN/49/2025, thereby suspending the CB License No R- 468 / 2018-CHA (PAN No. ADPFS1811F) of the petitioner firm, M/s.Subway Logistics, across all customs station, with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 16 (1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 and to quash the same in so far as, the said impugned order had been passed without jurisdiction and authority of law and in utter violation to the principles of natural justice, and in gross violation to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner herein under the constitution.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Baskaran For Respondent(s): Mr.K.S.Ramaswamy, CGSC For Respondent

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension order dated 10.10.2025, issued by the respondent suspending the petitioner’s CB license (Customs Broker License), under Regulation 16 (1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018.

2.The impugned order has been passed on the ground that while acting as a customs broker for an importer, the petitioner has violated the provisions of CBLR, 2018.

3.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:-

(a) For an incident that occurred in September 2023, the respondent has passed the impugned suspension order on 10.10.2025, which is contrary to the Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018. According to the petitioner, only in the case of immediate necessity, the license of the petitioner can be suspended. According to the petitioner, though the incident occurred in September 2023, the impugned suspension order passed by the respondent on 10.10.2025, after the lapse of more than two years is contrary to the Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018.

(b) The show cause notices which were treated as offence reports by the respondent was adjudicated by passing the order-in-original. In the said order- in-original, the Adjudicating Authority at Mumbai had refrained from imposing any penalty on the petitioner. Since the show cause notices which were treated as offence reports have been adjudicated upon and no penalty has been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the impugned suspension order dated 10.10.2025 has to be consequently quashed.

4.A counter has been filed by the respondent before this Court reiterating the contents of the impugned suspension order. The respondent would submit that instead of preferring statutory appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, which is not maintainable.

5.The following facts are undisputed:-

(a) The show cause notices issued to the petitioner were treated as offence reports by the respondent for the purpose of passing the impugned suspension order.

(b) The incident had occurred in September 2023, whereas, the impugned suspension order has been passed only on 10.10.2025, after the lapse of more than two years.

(c) The Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018, makes it clear that only in the case of immediate necessity, the license issued to a customs broker can be suspended.

(d) The show cause notices which are treated as offence reports by the respondent were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority by passing two orders-in-original, wherein the Adjudicating Authority had refrained from imposing any penalty on the petitioner.

6.From the undisputed facts recorded supra, it is clear that the petitioner’s license which has been suspended under the impugned order dated 10.10.2