Tribunal allows appeal, revokes license and penalty, finding no violation of specific regulations.

M/s. ICS Cargo Versus Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi

M/s. ICS Cargo Versus Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the revocation proceedings under Regulations 16 and 17 of CBLR, 2018.
2. Impact of revocation of suspension on the initiation of revocation proceedings under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018.
3. Alleged violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Revocation Proceedings:
The core issue was whether the revocation proceedings were barred by time under Regulations 16 and 17 of CBLR, 2018. The tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed under Regulation 17, which requires the issuance of a show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report. The tribunal noted that the regulation aims to ensure timely action against erring brokers to curb unlawful activities and protect the interests of both the customs broker and the department. The tribunal held that the show cause notice issued on 23.05.2019 was within the mandatory 90-day period from the receipt of the offence report by the Delhi Commissionerate on 25.02.2019. Thus, the proceedings were not barred by time.

2. Impact of Revocation of Suspension on Revocation Proceedings:
The appellant contended that once the suspension of his license was revoked, the Commissioner could not proceed with revocation under Regulation 17. However, the tribunal clarified that actions under Regulations 16 and 17 are independent. Regulation 16 deals with immediate suspension in cases where urgent action is necessary, while Regulation 17 prescribes a detailed procedure for revocation of the license. The tribunal held that revocation of suspension under Regulation 16 does not preclude the initiation or continuation of revocation proceedings under Regulation 17. Therefore, the Commissioner was within his rights to proceed with the revocation of the license even after revoking the suspension.

3. Alleged Violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n):
The tribunal examined the allegations of violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) by the appellant.

Violation of Regulation 10(a):
Regulation 10(a) requires a customs broker to obtain authorization from the importer. The tribunal found that the appellant had valid authorizations from the importing firms and there was no denial from the importers regarding the authorization. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had complied with Regulation 10(a).

Violation of Regulation 10(d):
Regulation 10(d) mandates a customs broker to advise clients to comply with the law and report non-compliance to customs authorities. The tribunal observed that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was aware of any manipulation of import invoices or misuse of IECs. The statements of key witnesses, including cross-examinations, did not support the allegations against the appellant. The tribunal held that the appellant had no reason to advise the importers or report any non-compliance, as there was no evidence of his knowledge of any wrongdoing. Thus, the violation of Regulation 10(d) was not established.

Violation of Regulation 10(n):
Regulation 10(n) requires verification of the IEC, GSTIN, and identity of the client. The tribunal found that the IECs and GSTINs of the importing firms were valid and there was no evidence of incorrect information. The tribunal held that the appellant had diligently verified the necessary details and there was no basis for the allegation of violation of Regulation 10(n).

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant had not violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The order of revoking the appellant's license and imposing a penalty was deemed unreasonable and unjustified. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with all consequential benefits to the appellant.