ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 10.12.2025
Madras High Court Quashes Customs Inquiry Report for Breach of Mandatory Timelines Under CBLR, 2018
This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.
The Madras High Court, in a significant judgment delivered on September 18, 2025, quashed an inquiry report issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018). The case, titled M/s. Sea Queen Shipping Services Private Limited vs. β The Commissioner of Customs & Anr. β, was presided over by Honourable Justice. β
Background of the Case
The petitioner, M/s. Sea Queen Shipping Services Private Limited, challenged the inquiry report dated June 27, 2025, issued by the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. β The report alleged violations of Regulation 10(q) of the CBLR, 2018, and recommended further proceedings. β The petitioner contended that the report was illegal, arbitrary, and issued beyond the mandatory timeline prescribed under Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018. β
The case stemmed from an investigation into an importer, M/s. β Anomsoft Solutions Private Limited, which revealed discrepancies between the imported goods and the business activities mentioned in the GST numbers of the importer. β The petitioner, acting as the customs broker, filed the Bills of Entry for the importer. β Following the investigation, the Principal Commissioner of Customs suspended the petitioner’s customs broker license on December 21, 2024, under Regulation 16(1) of the CBLR, 2018. β Subsequent inquiry proceedings under Regulation 17 were initiated, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice on January 17, 2025. β
Key Issues Raised
The petitioner raised two primary issues in the writ petition:
- The inquiry report was submitted beyond the mandatory 90-day timeline prescribed under Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018, thereby vitiating the proceedings. β
- The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice as per Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR, 2018. β
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties and referred to multiple precedents, including judgments from the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court. It reiterated that the 90-day timeline under Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018, is mandatory and not directory. The Court emphasized that exceeding this timeline results in the abatement of proceedings, as established by previous judicial pronouncements. β
The respondents argued that the delay in submitting the inquiry report was due to the petitioner’s repeated requests for time during the personal hearing. β However, the Court noted that the 90-day period had already expired by the time the first hearing was scheduled on April 28, 2025. β Therefore, any subsequent delays could not justify the violation of the mandatory timeline. β
The Court also addressed the issue of estoppel, stating that the petitioner’s participation in the proceedings does not negate the mandatory nature of the timeline under Regulation 17(5). β Furthermore, the Court found that the inquiry report was not communicated to the petitioner within the stipulated time, further violating the regulations. β
Conclusion
In its judgment, the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned inquiry report dated June 27, 2025. β The Court held that the proceedings stood abated due to the violation of the mandatory timeline under Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018. β The Court also deemed it unnecessary to address the second issue regarding the alleged violation of natural justice. β
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to mandatory timelines in regulatory proceedings and reinforces the principle that procedural lapses can vitiate the entire process. β It serves as a reminder to authorities to strictly comply with statutory requirements to ensure fairness and transparency in administrative actions.
Source: Madras High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply