Appeal partially allowed, CHA license reinstated with reduced forfeiture.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the revocation of the CHA license and reducing the forfeiture of the security deposit to Rs. 1 lakh. The Commissioner was directed to restore the CHA license within a week of the deposit, with the period of revocation extended for the duration it remained revoked. The appeal was granted in part due to the disproportionate nature of the penalties imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of CHA License and Forfeiture of Security Deposit
2. Alleged Misdeclaration and Under-valuation of Imported Goods
3. Violation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013
4. Due Diligence and KYC Verification by Customs Broker
5. Proportionality of Penalty Imposed

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of CHA License and Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The appellant, M/s Tanmay Global Logistics, a CHA firm, appealed against the revocation of their CHA license and the forfeiture of a Rs. 5 lakh security deposit. The Commissioner of Customs revoked the license based on allegations of involvement in customs duty evasion and failure to comply with CBLR, 2013. The Tribunal found the punishment of revocation too harsh and disproportionate, reducing the forfeiture to Rs. 1 lakh and directing the restoration of the CHA license.

2. Alleged Misdeclaration and Under-valuation of Imported Goods:
The Revenue alleged that parts of branded LED TVs were imported under the guise of unbranded parts with misdeclared values. The investigation revealed that the actual values were significantly higher than those declared. The goods were seized under Section 111 of the Customs Act for misdeclaration. Shri Ashok Purohit admitted to misdeclaration and voluntarily paid differential duty.

3. Violation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013:
The appellant was accused of violating Regulations 11(a), (d), (e), (f), and (n) of CBLR, 2013. The violations included failure to obtain proper authorization, not advising clients to comply with customs laws, lack of due diligence in verifying client information, and not verifying the correctness of the IEC code and client identity. The Enquiry Officer found these allegations to be proven.

4. Due Diligence and KYC Verification by Customs Broker:
The appellant argued that they had obtained all necessary documents and verified the address online, thus exercising due diligence. However, they admitted to lapses in not directly verifying the KYC documents from the IEC holder. The Tribunal noted that the documents were received through a relative, indicating an element of trust and inadvertence rather than malafide intent.

5. Proportionality of Penalty Imposed:
The Tribunal considered the past good conduct of the appellant and the lack of any previous penalties. The Tribunal found no evidence of connivance or extra remuneration received by the appellant. The revocation of the license was deemed too severe, especially given the inadvertent nature of the lapse. The Tribunal reduced the forfeiture to Rs. 1 lakh and ordered the restoration of the CHA license.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the order of revocation and reducing the forfeiture of the security deposit to Rs. 1 lakh. The Commissioner was directed to restore the CHA license within a week of the deposit. The period of revocation was to be extended for the duration the license remained revoked. The appeal was thus allowed in part.

---