Customs broker licence revocation sustained where forged import documents and timely dispatch of notice defeated both challenges.

Under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, a show cause notice is treated as issued when it is put into the process of dispatch and leaves the issuing authority's control, not merely when signed; on the stated facts, dispatch on the date of signature kept the notice within the ninety-day limit. The note further states that altered bill of lading details, supported by corroborating statements and electronic records and left unretracted, established forged and dishonest conduct, so revocation of the customs broker licence and allied penalties were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was issued within the prescribed period of ninety days from receipt of the offence report. (ii) Whether the findings of forgery and contravention of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 justified revocation of the customs broker licence and allied penalties.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was issued within the prescribed period of ninety days from receipt of the offence report.

Analysis: The regulation required the Commissioner to issue a written notice within ninety days of receipt of the offence report. The question was whether issuance meant only the date of signing or the date when the notice was put into the process of dispatch and ceased to remain under the control of the issuing authority. The dispatch register showed that the notice signed on 17.01.2018 was dispatched on the same date, which was within the limitation period. Mere later service on the customs broker did not control the computation of the statutory period.

Conclusion: The notice was held to have been issued within limitation, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings of forgery and contravention of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 justified revocation of the customs broker licence and allied penalties.

Analysis: The record showed that the date on the bill of lading had been altered to avoid the mandatory BIS certificate requirement. The proprietor's statement was corroborated by the employee's statement and by the EDI system and shipping line records. There was no retraction of the incriminating statements. On these facts, the adjudicating authority's finding that the customs broker had engaged in forged and dishonest conduct was upheld, and the plea for interference on merits was rejected.

Conclusion: The findings of contravention and the consequential action were upheld, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on limitation and on merits, and the impugned order was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of a statutory time limit to issue notice, issuance occurs when the notice is put beyond the control of the issuing authority and sent into the process of dispatch, not merely when it is signed; and proven fraudulent alteration of import documents will sustain action under the customs broker licensing regime.

---