Customs broker licence restoration upheld where authorisation existed and no connivance in misdeclaration was shown.

A customs broker licence was restored where the record supported findings that the broker had obtained proper authorisation, was not shown to have connived in the importer's misdeclaration, and was not expected to detect the misdeclaration on the facts. The adjudicating authority's reasons for rejecting the enquiry report were accepted, including the importer's cooperation in the investigation and the satisfactory conduct of the G-card holder. On that basis, no contravention of the cited Customs Broker Licensing Regulations was established and interference with the restoration order was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent customs broker had contravened Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(n) and 17(9) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 so as to justify revocation of the licence.

Analysis: The enquiry authority had reported contraventions, but the adjudicating authority gave detailed reasons for taking a different view. It found that the requisite authorisation had been obtained, that the surrounding circumstances did not indicate connivance in the mis-declaration, that the misdeclaration was not something a customs broker was expected to detect in the facts of the case, that the importer had joined the investigation, and that the conduct of the G-card holder was satisfactory. On scrutiny of the record, no reason was found to differ from that assessment.

Conclusion: No contravention of the cited regulations was established. The order revoking suspension of the customs broker licence was upheld and the Revenue appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenged order was sustained in full, and the customs broker retained the benefit of the licence restoration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudicating authority records supported findings that the customs broker had obtained authorisation, lacked connivance in the importer's misdeclaration, and had not otherwise violated the regulatory obligations, appellate interference is unwarranted absent a clear error in that assessment.

---