ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 09.02.2026
Madras High Court Quashes Customs Order for Non-Adherence to Mandatory Timelines Under CBLR- 2018
This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.Β β Β β ββ β β
The Madras High Court, in a landmark judgment dated January 29, 2026, has quashed an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Chennai Customs Zone, for failing to adhere to the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The case, WP No. β 27861 of 2025, was presided over by the Honourable Justice. β
Background of the Case
The petitioner, M/s. Shriwin Shipping and Logistics, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order in Original No. β 113023/2025 dated April 7, 2025. β The order imposed a penalty of βΉ15,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. β The petitioner argued that the order was passed without jurisdiction, authority of law, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. β
The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to adhere to the mandatory timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018, which stipulates that the entire proceedings must be completed within nine months from the date of the offence report. β In this case, the show-cause notice issued on June 27, 2024, was considered the offence report, and the proceedings should have been completed by March 26, 2025. β However, the impugned order was passed on April 7, 2025, exceeding the prescribed timeline. β
Courtβs Observations
Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had previously ruled in the case of M/s. β Santon Shipping Services vs. β The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and Another (judgment dated October 13, 2017) that the timelines under CBLR, 2018, are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. β This precedent has been consistently upheld in subsequent cases by the Madras High Court. β
The respondent argued that the timelines under CBLR, 2018, are directory rather than mandatory, citing decisions from other High Courts. β However, the Madras High Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the Division Benchβs judgment remains binding and has not been overruled by the Supreme Court. β
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Mandatory Nature of Timelines: The court reaffirmed that the timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018, are mandatory and must be strictly followed. β Any deviation from these timelines renders the proceedings invalid. β
- Adherence to Precedent: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to its own precedents, particularly the Division Bench judgment in M/s. β Santon Shipping Services, which has consistently been followed in similar cases. β
- Violation of Natural Justice: The court highlighted that the impugned order was passed without following due procedures of law, violating the principles of natural justice and the petitionerβs fundamental rights. β
- Quashing of Impugned Order: The court quashed the impugned order dated April 7, 2025, and allowed the writ petition, citing the respondentβs failure to comply with the mandatory timelines. β
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment serves as a significant reminder to authorities to strictly adhere to the timelines prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. β It underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the protection of fundamental rights in administrative proceedings. β The decision also highlights the judiciaryβs role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that government authorities act within the bounds of their jurisdiction. β
Conclusion
The Madras High Courtβs decision in WP No. β 27861 of 2025 is a landmark ruling that reinforces the mandatory nature of timelines under CBLR, 2018. It sets a strong precedent for similar cases and ensures that administrative authorities are held accountable for adhering to legal procedures. β This judgment is a victory for the principles of natural justice and the protection of fundamental rights, and it serves as a crucial reference point for future cases involving the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations.
Source: Madras High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379