2022 (4) TMI 1005 - AT - Customs

Unjust Decision Overturned: Lack of Evidence and Unfair Treatment in Customs License Revocation

The appeal challenged the revocation of a Customs Broker License and imposition of a penalty based on alleged violations. The court found that the lack of ... Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - risky exporters involved in IGST refund frauds, whose exports were processed by the appellant as the Customs Broker - contravention of provisions of Regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation - HELD THAT:- In this case, there are no details in the SCN or in the inquiry report or in the impugned order as to how the DGARM came to the conclusion that the exporters did not exist and how after considering the defence submissions, the Commissioner came to a conclusion that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. This case has been made and the licence has been revoked not only taking the alleged communication from DGARM as conclusive proof that the exporters did not exist but also inferring from it that the appellant has not conducted the verification as per Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The SCN did not even supply a copy of the communication from the DGARM to the appellant, let alone the details of its inquiries which led to the conclusion that the exporters did not exist. The entire case, therefore, is not built on conclusive evidence. The Commissioner found it proper to deprive the appellant and its employees of their livelihood in such a casual and callous manner. The impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. The respondent shall restore the Customs Broker licence of the appellant within 10 days of receiving a copy of this order - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Revocation of Customs Broker License and imposition of penalty based on alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018.Analysis:The appeal challenged an Order in Original revoking the Customs Broker License of the Appellant, M/s. Perfect Cargo and Logistics, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The impugned order was based on the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) identifying risky exporters involved in IGST refund frauds, some of whom were untraceable, and processed by the Appellant. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleged contravention of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. An Inquiry Officer's report confirmed the existence of exporters but found them non-existent based on DGARM's communication. The Commissioner concluded non-compliance with Regulation 10(n) and revoked the license. The Appellant argued compliance with requirements and submission of documents during adjudication.The central question was whether the Revenue proved the alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) and justified revocation and penalty. The SCN lacked supporting documents, and no evidence was presented during proceedings. The Inquiry Officer's report and the impugned order heavily relied on DGARM's communication without sharing details or documents with the Appellant. The Commissioner's decision lacked conclusive evidence, solely based on DGARM's communication, raising doubts about the fairness of the process.The absence of details on how DGARM concluded the exporters did not exist, lack of physical verification, and failure to provide supporting evidence undermined the case against the Appellant. The Commissioner's reliance on inconclusive evidence and hasty decision-making deprived the Appellant of due process and livelihood. The impugned order was deemed unjust and set aside, with directions to restore the Customs Broker license promptly.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted procedural flaws, lack of evidence, and unfair treatment towards the Appellant, leading to the reversal of the revocation and penalty. The case underscored the importance of due process, evidence-based decision-making, and fairness in regulatory actions affecting livelihoods and businesses.