Revocation of CHA License Upheld Due to Violations of CBLR 2013

The revocation of the CHA license was justified based on the appellant's violation of Regulation 11 (a), 11 (d), and 11 (n) of CBLR 2013. Despite the appellant's lack of knowledge about the substitution of prohibited goods, the failure to verify the exporter's details and ensure compliance with transit routes led to the violation. The Bench upheld the revocation but restricted the period, acknowledging the appellant's lack of awareness. The CHA license would be restored after a specified date, along with the forfeited security deposit, as the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2013 - Violation of Regulation 11 (a), 11 (d), and 11 (n) of CBLR 2013.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original revoking their CHA license and forfeiting the security deposit. The adjudicating authority based the revocation on the violation of Regulation 11 (a), 11 (d), and 11 (n) of CBLR 2013. The appellant's CHA license was suspended after an investigation revealed that a container declared as "Nepalese Handicrafts" actually contained prohibited Red Sanders wood. The appellant argued that they had no knowledge of the substitution and should not be held responsible. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to verify the exporter's antecedents and did not follow the specified transit route, leading to the substitution. The Revenue emphasized the CHA's duty to obtain authorization from the client and guide them on customs procedures.

The main issue was whether the revocation of the CHA license was justified. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant violated Regulation 11 (a), 11 (d), and 11 (n) of CBLR 2013 by not obtaining authorization from the exporter and failing to ensure compliance with transit routes. The appellant's argument that they were unaware of the substitution was considered. However, it was noted that the appellant received the CTD transit declaration and should have verified the client's details and guided them on the specified route. Due to the lack of verification, the substitution with Red Sanders wood occurred. The Bench upheld the revocation of the CHA license based on these observations.

In a similar case, the Bench had previously upheld an order while restricting the revocation period due to lack of knowledge about the contraband. Similarly, in the present case, no evidence showed that the appellant knew about the substitution. Considering this, the revocation of the CHA license was deemed effective until a specified date, after which the license and the forfeited security deposit would be restored. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.

---