Customs broker licence revocation found disproportionate where employee forgery occurred without the broker's knowledge or connivance.

Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were found unsustainable where an employee forged a signature on a duplicate shipping bill without the broker's knowledge or connivance. The Tribunal noted that no prejudice was caused to revenue, the responsible employees were removed immediately, and no fresh material justified a different conclusion from the earlier finding that the broker should not be penalised absent proved awareness or participation. The extreme penalty was therefore treated as disproportionate and inconsistent with the remand direction and inquiry record.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the customs broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were justified on the facts and findings recorded in the fresh proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2017.

Analysis: The duplicate shipping bill had not been signed and an employee of the broker admittedly forged the signature to avoid delay in shipment. The Tribunal noted, however, that the customs broker had no knowledge of or connivance in the forgery, that the revenue had suffered no prejudice, and that the employees responsible had been removed immediately. The impugned order did not record any fresh material justifying a conclusion different from the earlier finding that the broker was not to be penalised in the absence of proved awareness or participation. In these circumstances, the extreme penalty of revocation and forfeiture was found disproportionate and unsupported by a proper appreciation of the remand direction and the inquiry record.

Conclusion: The revocation of the customs broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---