Customs broker due diligence and client-advice duties can sustain penalty, but not licence revocation without proof of knowledge.

A customs broker licence revocation under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 was found unsustainable where the alleged misconduct rested on contradictory exporter statements and assumptions about the broker's knowledge, without independent material proving diversion, gross negligence, or lack of due diligence. The record still showed a duty to advise the client and report non-compliance, so the contravention was treated as serious enough to support lesser consequences. On that basis, revocation of the licence was set aside, while forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the customs broker licence was warranted for alleged violation of the obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, and whether the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The alleged misconduct arose from shipping bills filed in 2015, but the licence was suspended only in 2019, and the enquiry and adjudication were also delayed. The enquiry officer had not proved the charge, and the finding of violation rested mainly on contradictory statements of the exporter and on assumptions regarding the broker's knowledge of the actual port of discharge. No independent material was produced to establish that the customs broker knew of the diversion or failed to exercise due diligence. On the facts, gross negligence or lack of due diligence was not established. At the same time, the record showed an obligation on the customs broker to advise the client and report non-compliance, and the Tribunal considered the contravention serious enough to justify lesser consequences.

Conclusion: The revocation of the customs broker licence was set aside, but the forfeiture of security deposit and the penalty were sustained.

---