JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant, a Customs Broker and a holder of regular licence issued under Regulation 9(1) of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 has come up with the present appeal challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, by which the order revoking the license is set aside, however the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty is upheld. 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows: The appellant is a licensed Customs broker. On 22.3.2022 on a specific intelligence gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Zonal Unit, Cochin, a consignment of oil tanks stacked in the examination shed of Q10 CFS was found to have concealed wooden logs that appeared to be red sanders wrapped in hay. The total quantity of the red sander logs recovered was 2150 KGs. The export of red sanders is prohibited under the law. Thus, a restraint order was issued on 22.3.2022 by the Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI in respect of the seized wooden logs. An explanation was sought for from the appellant. The Managing Partner of the appellant gave the statement which was recorded on 23.3.2022, wherein, inter alia, it was submitted that one Sri. Shaan Basha had called upon the appellant for a quote for export of oil tanks to Colombo and the quote was given by them over phone. It was further stated that Sri. Shaan Basha informed that M/s. Zain Trading will be the exporter and also forwarded the photographs of the oil tanks intended to be exported. Copies of the IEC, GST, Pan Card, Aadhar, invoice, packing list etc. were forwarded by the said person through Whatsapp. It was further stated that the firm had not verified the identity of the exporter or the functioning of the exporter at the declared address and also never contacted the exporter. Pointing out that the Customs Broker has contravened the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, the Commissioner of Customs proceeded to suspend the licence by order dated 25.3.2022. On 31.3.2022, the appellant requested for withdrawal of the suspension order. On 12.4.2022, the Commissioner of Customs in exercise of its powers conferred under Regulation 16 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, confirmed the order. 3. On 31.3.2022, the appellant requested for withdrawal of the suspension order. On 12.4.2022, the Commissioner of Customs in exercise of its powers conferred under Regulation 16 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, confirmed the order. 3. The appellant approached this Court in WP (C) No. 14202/2022 and by judgment dated 20.6.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the order and directed the authorities to reconsider the issue. Pertinently, this Court ordered the suspension to continue till a fresh decision is taken by the respondent as directed by this Court. In pursuance to the directions contained in the Judgment dated 20.6.2022 in WP (C) No. 14202/2022, the Commissioner of Customs proceeded to pass order dated 1.7.2022, by which the decision to suspend the licence under Regulation 16(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, was affirmed. The said order was again questioned before this Court in WP (C) No. 22501/2022. A learned Single Judge of this Court issued an interim order dated 29.8.2022 staying the operation of order dated 1.7.2022. It was, however, made clear that the order will not prohibit continuation/culmination of proceedings initiated against the appellant. 4. While so, on 13.9.2022 a show cause notice was issued in exercise of the power conferred under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the licence shall not be revoked permanently. Along with the notice to show cause, a report dated 23.3.2022 from the Superintendent of Customs and also an offence report dated 1.9.2022 by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs were enclosed and the explanation of the appellant was solicited. In the light of the aforesaid show cause notice, WP (C) No. 22501/2022 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the authorities to complete the proceedings within a period of three months and till such time interim order dated 29.8.2022 was maintained. 5. The appellant showed cause to the notice dated 13.9.2022 by his reply dated 27.9.2022. In the light of the aforesaid show cause notice, WP (C) No. 22501/2022 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the authorities to complete the proceedings within a period of three months and till such time interim order dated 29.8.2022 was maintained. 5. The appellant showed cause to the notice dated 13.9.2022 by his reply dated 27.9.2022. After considering the reply and also the documents annexed along with the reply to the show cause notice, the Commissioner of Customs proceeded to pass final order dated 15.12.2022 rejecting the explanation and revoking the licence granted to the appellant in terms of Regulations 14 and 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, with immediate effect and also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- along with forfeiture of the entire amount of the security deposit. 6. Aggrieved by the final order dated 15.12.2022, the appellant approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by preferring an appeal. The Tribunal by order dated 15.7.2024, confirmed the findings of the original authority. However, taking a sympathetic view, the order of revocation of the license was set aside, but the forfeiture of the security deposit as well as the imposition of penalty, were sustained. It is against the said order of the Tribunal that the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard Smt.Vijitha V. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. V. Girishkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that the entire proceedings for revocation of the licence were barred by limitation. According to her, in terms of Sub-Regulation (1) to Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, the Commissioner of Customs ought to have issued notice in writing to the Customs broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence. In the present case, according to the learned counsel, a preliminary report was drawn on 23.3.2022 before issuing orders suspending the licence of the appellant. Therefore, proceedings for revocation of the licence ought to have been initiated within a period of ninety days from the date of the said report. In the present case, according to the learned counsel, a preliminary report was drawn on 23.3.2022 before issuing orders suspending the licence of the appellant. Therefore, proceedings for revocation of the licence ought to have been initiated within a period of ninety days from the date of the said report. In the present case, notice to show cause was issued only on 13.9.2022, along with a copy of the offence report dated 1.9.2022 and therefore, the proceedings are beyond the period of ninety days and hence barred by limitation. It is further contended that there is no obligation on the part of the Customs broker to verify the identity of the exporter personally and, therefore, the allegation against the appellant was totally unsustainable and, therefore, the order revoking the licence is without any basis. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the above two aspects while passing the impugned order. 9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would support the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned order. 10. We have considered the submissions raised across the bar and appraised the documents accompanying the memorandum of appeal. 11. The facts as narrated above discloses two sets of proceedings: (a) proceedings initiated on 25.3.2022 for suspending the licence; and (b) proceedings/show cause notice dated 13.9.2022 for revocation of the licence. The power to suspend the licence is traceable to Regulation 16(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. In terms of Regulation 16(1), the Commissioner of Customs in appropriate cases where immediate action is required, is empowered to suspend the licence of a Customs broker, where an enquiry against such Customs broker is pending or contemplated. No doubt, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Customs authorities before suspending the licence on 25.3.2022. The said preliminary enquiry can be construed only for the purpose of the proceedings initiated under Regulation 16(1). It is also evidenced by documents that after the suspension of the licence, a further enquiry was conducted and an offence report was drawn on 1.9.2022. It is based on the said report, which was drawn on 1.9.2022 that the proceedings for revocation of the licence was initiated by the Customs authorities. 12. A reading of Regulations 16(1) and 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 makes it explicitly clear that the powers to suspend the licence and the power to revoke the licence are distinct and different. 12. A reading of Regulations 16(1) and 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 makes it explicitly clear that the powers to suspend the licence and the power to revoke the licence are distinct and different. No doubt, Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations of 2018 mandates that the notice to revoke the licence has to be issued within a period of ninety days from the date of the report. We cannot accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the proceedings under Regulation 17(1) ought to have been initiated from the date of the first report, i.e. 23.3.2022, primarily for the reason that the powers under Regulations 16 and 17 are distinct and different. It was well within the domain of the Customs Authorities to have initiated proceedings under Regulation 17 without initiating measures under Regulation 16(1) by suspending the licence. The mere fact that a preliminary enquiry was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the facts to determine as to whether a prima facie case for suspension of the licence with immediate effect has been made out or not by itself will not enable the Customs broker to contend that the proceedings for revocation, if any, ought to have been taken within ninety days from the date of the said report. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. There is also another reason as to why the contention of the appellant has to fail. A reading of Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 shows that the Commissioner of Customs is under an obligation to issue a notice to show cause stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence. However, the consequence of not issuing the notice within the aforesaid period is nowhere laid down in the Regulations. Whether a particular statute, or the subordinate legislation framed under it is “mandatory” or “directory” depends on whether the thing directed to done is of the essence of the thing required or is a matter of form and what is a matter of essence can often be determined only by judicial construction. Generally, where affirmative language is used, the enactment or rule is regarded only as directory. Though expressed in affirmative language the words may be absolute, explicit and peremptory, calling for including a negative by implication. Generally, where affirmative language is used, the enactment or rule is regarded only as directory. Though expressed in affirmative language the words may be absolute, explicit and peremptory, calling for including a negative by implication. Everything will depend upon the context or what is called the legislative intent and the purpose of enactment and the intention of the authors of the rules. 14. In the above backdrop, when we analyse the provisions of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, we are unable to decipher any consequence of non-adherence to the mandatory period of ninety days. Therefore, we can only assume that the said period is directory and not mandatory. If that be so, the contention of the appellant has to fail. 15. Equally, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not obliged to verify the details of the exporter. This Court cannot appreciate such an impervious stand of the appellant. A reading of Regulation 10(n) undoubtedly shows that it is the solemn obligation of the Customs broker to verify the details of the exporter. As a matter of fact, we are appraised that there were other instances also wherein proceedings were initiated against the appellant for revocation of the licence on violation of the Regulations. In other words, the consistent case of the authorities is that the appellant is a habitual offender of the violation of Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. It is in the above backdrop that the Tribunal proceeded to consider the appeal and found that the proceedings initiated against the appellant are proper. However, while holding so, the Tribunal took a sympathetic view and, finding that the revocation of the licence would detrimentally affect the employees of the appellant firm, decided to interfere with the order revoking the licence of the appellant, but however, confirmed the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of the security deposit. In our considered view, though it was not within the domain of the Tribunal to have passed the order in the nature which is impugned in this appeal, we refrain from commenting further on the order, since it meets the interest of justice. In our considered view, though it was not within the domain of the Tribunal to have passed the order in the nature which is impugned in this appeal, we refrain from commenting further on the order, since it meets the interest of justice. It is not always mandatory that while this Court exercises its appellate powers under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, it should interfere with the order, though not legal, which meets the interest of justice. 16. As an upshot of our discussion as above, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appellant has not made out a case for entertaining the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.