Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, had failed to act within the statutorily prescribed 90-day period after receiving an “offence report.” The proceedings initiated by the Customs Department were barred by limitation under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.

Logo
0

Discover more
GST compliance guide
Live legal updates
Bombay High Court
Tax consultation service
Tax audit insurance
Tax law courses
Legal book reviews
Legal career opportunities
Court case databases
Legal research software

Search
HomeIndirect TaxesCustoms Broker Licence Can’t Be Revoked Beyond 90-Day After…
Customs Broker Licence Can’t Be Revoked Beyond 90-Day After Receiving Offence Report: Madras HC
Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwala
25/10/2025
Customs Broker Licence Can’t Be Revoked Beyond 90-Day After Receiving Offence Report: Madras HC
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the revocation of a customs broker licence issued to M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics, holding that customs broker licence can’t be revoked beyond 90-day after receiving an offence report.

The bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, had failed to act within the statutorily prescribed 90-day period after receiving an “offence report.” The proceedings initiated by the Customs Department were barred by limitation under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.

The petitioner, ACS Shipping & Logistics, a Tuticorin-based licensed customs broker, had its licence revoked by the Tuticorin Customs Commissionerate on February 25, 2022. The order also forfeited the firm’s security deposit and imposed a penalty of ₹50,000.

The action was based on allegations that one exporter, M/s. J. Tex India, had fraudulently availed ineligible IGST refunds, drawback, and rewards using bogus GST credentials. ACS Shipping had filed seven shipping bills for the said exporter as its customs broker.

The Department claimed that the broker failed to exercise due diligence under Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. However, the petitioner contended that the revocation proceedings were initiated well beyond the 90-day limitation period from the date of the “offence report.”

The customs broker argued that the alleged offence occurred between June and September 2018, and the DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) had investigated the case. The Mumbai Customs Commissionerate had issued a prohibitory order on November 18, 2020, restricting the petitioner from operating within its jurisdiction. A copy of that prohibitory order was marked to the Tuticorin Commissionerate, yet the show-cause notice was issued only on September 14, 2021, well past the 90-day window prescribed under Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR, 2018. The department had failed to produce any evidence of when it actually received the offence report.

The Customs Department argued that the action was valid and not barred by limitation. He maintained that the “offence report” was received only in June 2021, and that the proceedings were commenced accordingly.

The court after examining the record, held that the prohibitory order issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate on November 18, 2020, which detailed the investigation and cited the role of the petitioner, qualified as an “offence report” under Regulation 17.

The Court observed that Regulation 17(1) mandates issuance of a notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report. The explanation to Regulation 17 defines “offence report” as a summary of investigation and framing of charges against a customs broker. The Department failed to show when the report was actually received and did not produce any affidavit or proo to substantiate its claim. Since official acts are presumed to be regular, it was reasonable to infer that the Tuticorin Customs office received the report in due course after it was marked to them in November 2020.

“The respondent has miserably failed to discharge the obligation cast on him to show that the impugned action was initiated within the prescribed period,” the Judge stated, concluding that the revocation proceedings were time-barred.

The Court quashed the Order reinstating the licence of ACS Shipping & Logistics. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Case Details

Case Title: ACS Shipping & Logistics Versus The Commissioner of Customs

Case No.: W.P(MD)No.4416 of 2022

Date: 22.10.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: S.Baskaran

Counsel For Respondent: R.Gowrishankar

Click Here To Read Order
Read More: Gauhati High Court Grants Bail in GST Input Tax Credit Misuse Case

TagsCustoms Broker Licence

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwala

Homepage – Default PRO

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.

donate
District Court Dismisses Advocate’s Plea Challenging Ayodhya Verdict, Imposes Rs. 6 Lakh Cost for ‘Frivolous Litigation’
25/10/2025
Hotel Marketing, Reservation Fees Not Taxable as Technical or Royalty Income Under India–US DTAA: ITAT
25/10/2025
Relief To Vodafone: ITAT Allows Rs.1,247 Crore Depreciation on 3G Spectrum Rights
25/10/2025

Previous article
Gauhati High Court Grants Bail in GST Input Tax Credit Misuse Case
Next article
ICAI Updates UDIN Portal: New Reporting Feature for Audit Opinions Introduced Just Days Before Tax Audit Deadline
District Court Dismisses Advocate’s Plea Challenging Ayodhya Verdict, Imposes Rs. 6 Lakh Cost for ‘Frivolous Litigation’
25/10/2025
Hotel Marketing, Reservation Fees Not Taxable as Technical or Royalty Income Under India–US DTAA: ITAT
25/10/2025
Relief To Vodafone: ITAT Allows Rs.1,247 Crore Depreciation on 3G Spectrum Rights
25/10/2025
ITAT Deletes Rs. 1,205 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Vodafone–Essar Trademark Royalty
25/10/2025
District Court Dismisses Advocate’s Plea Challenging Ayodhya Verdict, Imposes Rs. 6 Lakh Cost for ‘Frivolous Litigation’
Hotel Marketing, Reservation Fees Not Taxable as Technical or Royalty Income Under India–US DTAA: ITAT
Relief To Vodafone: ITAT Allows Rs.1,247 Crore Depreciation on 3G Spectrum Rights
ITAT Deletes Rs. 1,205 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Vodafone–Essar Trademark Royalty
Sale of Ancestral Land to Be Taxed in Hands of HUF, Not Individual: ITAT
SGST Uncovers Rs. 157.87 Crore Turnover Suppression in Massive Restaurant Inspection Drive “Operation Honeydukes”
FinMin Issues Notification Superseding 31 Customs Exemption Notifications: Prescribes Customs Duty, IGST, Compensation Cess Rates For Goods Imported Into India
Eluru Court Sentences Two Telangana Men to 10 Years in Jail for Transporting 428 kg of Ganja
Central Govt. Employees – Income Tax Rates (Assessment Year 2025–26)
Balaji Manoharan Appointed as Joint Registrar of GSTAT at Chennai
ICAI Updates UDIN Portal: New Reporting Feature for Audit Opinions Introduced Just Days Before Tax Audit Deadline
Gauhati High Court Grants Bail in GST Input Tax Credit Misuse Case
About Us

Juris Hour is a dedicated online news portal committed to delivering accurate, transparent, and timely updates on the latest legal developments across India and beyond.
We cover a wide range of topics including court judgments, landmark rulings, legal news, articles, circulars, orders, notifications, and expert opinions that impact businesses, individuals, and institutions.

Company

About Us
Advertise With Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Disclaimer
Shipping Policy
Cancellation and Refund Policy
Trending

Other Laws
District Court Dismisses Advocate’s Plea Challenging Ayodhya Verdict, Imposes Rs. 6 Lakh Cost for ‘Frivolous Litigation’
Direct Tax
Hotel Marketing, Reservation Fees Not Taxable as Technical o
notification icon