Customs Broker prohibition powers must stay limited and cannot replace the separate suspension and revocation framework.

Regulation 23 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 permits a Commissioner to prohibit a Customs Broker from operating only in a limited, section-specific manner where obligations under Regulation 11 are not met. The provision is distinct from the separate suspension and revocation framework under Regulations 19 and 20, and cannot be used as a substitute for a blanket or indefinite bar across an entire Commissionerate. On the stated facts, a prohibition based on a single instance and extending until further orders was found unjustified and was set aside, with relief granted subject to a protective undertaking for possible revenue loss.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order prohibiting the Customs Broker from operating within the Bangalore Customs Commissionerate under Regulation 23 of the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2013 was sustainable in the facts and statutory scheme.

Analysis: Regulation 23 empowers the Commissioner to prohibit a Customs Broker from working in one or more sections where the broker has not fulfilled the obligations laid down under Regulation 11. The Regulations also provide a distinct mechanism for suspension and revocation of licence by the licensing authority under Regulations 19 and 20. The prohibition power is intended to operate as a limited and section-specific measure pending or alongside the licensing proceedings, and it cannot be used to impose a blanket, open-ended restriction across the entire Commissionerate when the licensing authority has already taken a separate view in the revocation proceedings. The impugned order was based on a single instance and did not justify a total prohibition until further orders.

Conclusion: The prohibition order was unjustified and was set aside; the Customs Broker was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The impugned prohibition could not be sustained as an unrestricted and indefinite measure, and the operative relief was granted in favour of the appellant, subject to the protective undertaking directed for possible revenue loss.

Ratio Decidendi: A prohibition under Regulation 23 must remain confined to the statutory purpose and cannot override or become a substitute for the separate suspension and revocation framework under Regulations 19 and 20 so as to impose a blanket, indefinite bar without adequate justification.

---