CBLR proceedings initiated beyond the mandatory 90-day notice period are time-barred.

The appellant, a partner of M/s Safa Shipping Agency, acted as Customs Broker for an import in which undeclared plastic goods were found concealed behind declared limestone powder.

After a penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Department issued a separate notice under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR), alleging regulatory breaches and failure to supervise an employee.

The notice was issued on 11 March 2016, based on the same facts and evidence underlying the Customs Act proceedings. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 under Regulation 22; the appellant appealed.

1. Whether the notice dated 11 March 2016 and resulting proceedings under the CBLR, 2013 were barred by the 90-day period prescribed by Regulation 20(1).

2. Whether the appellant’s merits-based challenges to the findings and penalty required determination.

Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR, 2013 requires the Commissioner to issue a written notice to a Customs Broker within 90 days from receipt of the offence report.

The Tribunal applied A.M. Ahamed & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai, which treated the Commissionerate’s date of knowledge—through a communication such as a show-cause notice or order-in-original—as the relevant date where “offence report” is undefined, and Masterstroke Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (I), Chennai, which held the 90-day limit mandatory.

It also followed Sowparnika Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs, which applied those principles and treated the limitation period as mandatory.

The Tribunal noted that Santon Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin likewise affirmed that a mandatory limitation period cannot be disregarded on the merits of the case.

The Regulation 20 notice did not identify when the offence report was received, although that date determined whether the notice was timely.

The Tribunal found that the Department had knowledge of the alleged transgressions at least when it issued its Customs Act show-cause notice on 18 September 2014, and indisputably by the order-in-original dated 9 September 2015.

The CBLR notice followed on 11 March 2016—well beyond 90 days even if time were reckoned from the later adjudication date.

Applying the binding Madras High Court authorities, the Tribunal held that the limitation requirement was mandatory and that the proceedings were consequently vitiated. It therefore did not examine the appellant’s merits-based arguments.

It set aside the impugned order imposing the ₹25,000 penalty and allowed the appeal, with consequential relief, if any, in law.