2023 (11) TMI 1264 - HC - Customs

Customs broker license cancellation proceedings dismissed for lack of evidence under Regulations 2018

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADMN. & AIRPORT), KOLKATA Versus M/s. B.K. CLEARING AGENCY

Calcutta HC affirmed the Tribunal's decision dismissing customs broker license cancellation proceedings. The court found no violations of Customs Brokers ... Cancellation of a Customs Broker license - clearing the export consignments - Violations of various regulations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - transfer of license in terms of Regulation 1(4) of CBLR, 2018 or not. Violation of Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR 2018 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal was convinced on facts that this being an internal arrangement it cannot be treated to be an alleged violation of Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR 2018. Noting the factual position, we affirm the view taken by the learned Tribunal, more particularly, when it is not in dispute that Arup Ghosh has been handling the clearance work for the respondent in the capacity of a G Card holder and authorised representative. Allegation against the respondent was that they violated the regulation 10(d) of the CBLR - Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence available on record to substantiate the allegation that the respondent has not advised their clients properly. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard stands affirmed. Violation of Regulation 10(m) - Noting the facts the Tribunal, in our view, rightly held that there was no record to prove that the respondent has not performed its duties efficiently or in an expeditious manner. Therefore, we find that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the respondent has not violated Regulation 10(m) of the CBLR 2018 is affirmed. Allegation against the respondent is with regard to Regulation 13(2) - Tribunal took note of the fact that Arup Ghosh, the G-Card holder and authorised representative of the respondent, has handled the clearance work for the exporter M/s. S. S. Impex, Hydrabad and the department has not raised any objection in this regard. Furthermore, as noted previously, the shipping bill in question was not filed by the respondent but was filed by Just Logistic–1 and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent cannot be held liable for any violation that might have been committed by Just Logistic–1. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard also stands affirmed. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR 2018 - The Tribunal examined this aspect of the matter and has found that all those documents are not in dispute and have been issued by various Government agencies and entities, which would go to substantiate the existence of the exporter at the relevant time when these documents were issued. The Tribunal has also taken note of the other facts and also examined as to in what manner the Customs broker can proceed to verify the authenticity and the reliability of the documents pertaining to his clients. In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and upholding the relief granted to the respondent. The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant revenue, and the stay application was also dismissed. Issues Involved:The appeal challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the cancellation of a Customs Broker license based on alleged violations of various regulations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.Regulation 1(4) Violation:The appellant department alleged that the respondent transferred works to an individual, potentially violating Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR 2018. The Tribunal found that the respondent did not transfer the license, as the individual in question was handling clearance work as an authorized representative, not as a license transferee. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on factual considerations.Regulation 10(d) Violation:The appellant claimed a violation of Regulation 10(d) regarding advising clients to comply with Customs Act provisions. The Tribunal noted that the problematic shipping bill was not filed by the respondent but by a different entity, Just Logistic-1, owned by the individual in question. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of improper client advice by the respondent.Regulation 10(m) Violation:Regarding Regulation 10(m) on performing duties efficiently, the Tribunal found no record indicating inefficiency by the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision that the respondent did not violate this regulation was affirmed.Regulation 13(2) Violation:The allegation under Regulation 13(2) concerning supervising employees was addressed by the Tribunal, noting that the individual handling clearance work was not objected to by the department. As the problematic shipping bill was not filed by the respondent, the Tribunal held the respondent not liable for any potential violations by the other entity.Regulation 10(n) Violation:The appellant contended a violation of Regulation 10(n) related to verifying client information. The Tribunal found that the respondent had conducted due verification using reliable sources and authentic documents, meeting the regulatory requirements. The Tribunal accepted the due diligence performed by the respondent in verifying client information.In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and upholding the relief granted to the respondent. The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant revenue, and the stay application was also dismissed.