SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


DATED: 16-03-2026


CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ


WMP.Nos.41409 & 41413 of 2024


M/s.Sadguru Logistics Pvt. Ltd


No 156, Second Floor Om Sakthi Vinayagar Koil Street Mr Nagar, T.H. Road, Kodungaiyur Chennai600 118


Rep. by Its Director Shri Sunil S. Mishra ..Petitioner(s)


Vs


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


2. The Inquiry Officer The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs Audit Commissionerate, No. 60 Rajaji Salai Custom House, Chennai 600 001 ..Respondent(s)


For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Baskaran


For Respondent(s): Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Senior Panel Counsel


16-03-2026


Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ANU


MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.


ANU


To


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


2. The Inquiry Officer The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs Audit Commissionerate, No. 60 Rajaji Salai Custom House, Chennai 600 001 and WMP.Nos.41409 & 41413 of 2024


16-03-2026

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned SCN No.23/2024 dated 29.06.2024 in F.No GEN / CB / ACTN / 2 / 2024 - CBS issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same, in so far as, the impugned show cause notice was not issued within the mandatory time period as stipulated under Regulation 17(1) CBLR, 2018 and the inquiry report dated 21.11.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent / Inquiry officer, was also not within the mandatory time period as stipulated under Regulation 17 (5) of CBLR 2018 and the non- compliance of the same vitiates further proceedings under the impugned show cause notice.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show cause order dated 29.06.2024 on the ground that the same was issued beyond the period stipulated under Regulation 17(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as CBLR, 2018) and also challenging the Inquiry Report dated 21.11.2024, on the ground that it was issued beyond the period stipulated under Regulation 17(5) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

2. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to note that the Offence Report was issued on 11.06.2023. The Show Cause Notice came to be issued on29.06.2024. The Inquiry Report was issued on 21.11.2024.

3. The limited ground on which the impugned Show cause notice is challenged is that the same ought to have been issued within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of Offence Report (i.e) 90 days from 11.06.2023, in which event, it would expire on 10.09.2023. However, Show cause notice has been issued only on 29.06.2024, which is beyond the period stipulated under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018. Thereafter, the Inquiry Report dated 21.11.2024 came to be issued, which ought to have been issued within 90 days from the date of issuance of Show cause notice i.e., on or before 28.09.2024. However, the Inquiry Report has been issued only on 21.11.2024 and thus beyond the period stipulated under Regulation 17(5) of CBLR, 2018.

4. It may be relevant to refer to Rule 17(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, which reads as under:

“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 Customs 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.”

5. The above regulation has been the subject matter of consideration on more than one occasion. Question as to whether the timeline prescribed in Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, is mandatory and failure to adhere to the timeline would prove fatal to the validity of the show cause notice is no longer res integra. This Court has consistently taken the view that the timeline prescribed in Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2108 are mandatory and failure to adhere to the timeline would prove fatal. The following judgments may be relevant:

i) A.M.Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai reported in 2014(309) E.L.T.433 (Mad.), wherein it has held as under:

“18. The above regulation has only ingredients namely (I) failure to comply with the bond conditions, (ii) failure to comply with the regulations and (iii) a misconduct, for any of which, the licence can be revoked. Since the above regulation does not use the expression “offence report”, we have to presume that a report indicating the availability of any one of the above 3 ingredients should be construed as an offence report. Consequently, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top