Case Details: Cargo Care International Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin (2025) 28 Centax 343 (Ker.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Easwaran S., JJ.
- Shri V. Vijitha, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri V. Girishkumar, SC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a Customs broker, challenged the limitation period under Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, for the issuance of a show cause notice for revocation of a license, asserting that it was mandatory. The matter was brought before the Hon’ble High Court, which was tasked with interpreting the statutory provision.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that the limitation period under Regulation 17(1) is directory, not mandatory, as there was no consequence specified for non-compliance with the ninety-day period. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal in favour of the Revenue, rejecting the appellant’s assertion.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Cargo Care International v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 20552/2024, dated 15-7-2024 by CESTAT, Bangalore — Affirmed [Paras 1, 6, 9]
List of Cases Cited
- Cargo Care International v. Commissioner — 2023 (383) E.L.T. 47 (Ker.) = (2022) 1 Centax 156 (Ker.) — Referred [Para 3]
