CBLR Regulation 17’s mandatory 90-day period bars revocation proceedings initiated beyond limitation.

The petitioner, a customs broker, held a customs broker licence issued under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (“CBLR 2018”). The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleged that the petitioner had knowingly facilitated the misclassification of imported betel-nut products under CTH 21069030 instead of CTH 08028020, thereby resulting in evasion of customs duty, Social Welfare Surcharge and IGST.

Show-cause notices under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, dated 21.09.2022 and 26.09.2022, were issued and copies were marked to the respondent licensing authority. Adjudication orders imposing penalties were subsequently passed on 07.02.2024 and 24.04.2024, and their receipt by the respondent was not disputed.

The respondent later sought the relied-upon documents and investigation report from the Import Section through communications dated 24.04.2025 and 25.04.2025. The documents were furnished on 25.04.2025 and 16.05.2025. Thereafter, proceedings under Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR 2018 were initiated, culminating in the order dated 12.01.2026 revoking/cancelling the petitioner’s customs broker licence.

Whether the show-cause notice under Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR 2018 was issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report, as required by the Regulation?

Whether the Section 124 show-cause notices and/or the orders-in-original, together with the relied-upon documents, constituted the offence report for purposes of Regulation 17(1), despite the absence of a separately titled investigation report?

Whether the respondent had statutory authority to revoke the petitioner’s customs broker licence when the Regulation 17(1) proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed 90-day period?

The Court applied Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, which requires the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs to issue notice to a customs broker within 90 days from receipt of an “offence report” proposing revocation of the licence or imposition of penalty.

The Explanation to Regulation 17 defines an offence report as a summary of the investigation and prima facie framing of charges concerning acts or omissions of the customs broker that render the broker unfit to transact business.

The Court held that, where no separate investigation report exists, a Section 124 show-cause notice containing the investigation summary, allegations and relied-upon documents may constitute the offence report.

The Court also relied on Santon Shipping Services, Tuticorin v. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Tuticorin, CMA No. 730 of 2016, decided on 13.10.2017, which treated the 90-day period under the corresponding Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR, 2004 as mandatory.

The Court found that the Section 124 show-cause notices issued in 2022 contained the summary of the investigation and the allegations against the petitioner and were accompanied by the relied-upon documents. Copies had also been marked to the respondent licensing authority.

Accordingly, those notices, or at the latest the orders-in-original received in 2024, supplied the material necessary to constitute the offence report. The respondent could not defer commencement of the 90-day limitation period by subsequently obtaining from the Import Section documents that had already accompanied the Section 124 proceedings.

Since the Regulation 17(1) proceedings were initiated only after the respondent received those documents in April and May 2025, they were substantially beyond the prescribed 90-day period. The subsequent proceedings and the impugned revocation order therefore lacked statutory authority.

The order dated 12.01.2026 was set aside, and the respondent was directed to forthwith restore the petitioner’s customs broker licence and permit the petitioner to resume operations.

The writ petition was allowed, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and there was no order as to costs.