Tribunal upholds Customs Broker license revocation, dismisses appeal, no costs awarded. Show cause notice valid.

M/s Swastik Cargo Agency Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

M/s Swastik Cargo Agency Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Whether the show cause notice is beyond the period of limitation under CBLR, 2013Rs.
2. Whether the present case is hit by the principle of double jeopardy on issuance of the second suspension orderRs.
3. Whether the Customs Broker has violated the provisions of Regulation 11(a), (d), (m), (n), (o), and 17(9) of CBLR, 2013Rs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice dated 07.05.2018 was beyond the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of detection of the offence, as per Circular No. 09/2010 dated 08.04.2010. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Regulations 18, 19, and 20 of CBLR, 2013, which outline the procedures for revocation and suspension of licenses. The Tribunal noted that the offence report was received on 09.02.2018, and the show cause notice was issued within 90 days, thus complying with Regulation 20(1). Therefore, the show cause notice was not barred by limitation.

2. Principle of Double Jeopardy:
The appellant contended that two show cause notices could not be issued on the same facts and that the license could not be suspended and revoked twice on the same issues. The Tribunal clarified that the suspension of the license under Regulation 19 is an interim measure and independent of the revocation proceedings under Regulation 20. The initial suspension was revoked due to a lack of concrete evidence, but with the emergence of new facts, a subsequent suspension was justified. The Tribunal concluded that the principle of double jeopardy did not apply, as the actions were based on new developments and were necessary to prevent misuse of the license.

3. Violations of CBLR, 2013 Regulations:
The Tribunal examined the specific violations of Regulations 11(a), (d), (m), (n), (o), and 17(9) of CBLR, 2013:

- Regulation 11(a): The CB failed to obtain proper authorization from the exporters, who were found to be fictitious and non-existent. The authorization was obtained from a freight forwarder, not directly from the exporters.
- Regulation 11(d): The CB did not advise the clients to comply with the provisions of the Act, as the clients (exporters) were non-existent, and thus, no compliance advice could be given.
- Regulation 11(m): The CB did not discharge duties with utmost speed and efficiency, as the entire export process was controlled by the freight forwarder, and the CB did not respond to summons or join the investigation.
- Regulation 11(n): The CB failed to verify the antecedents, IEC number, identity, and functioning of the clients. The exporters were found to be non-existent, and the documents were not verified independently.
- Regulation 11(o): The CB did not inform the Customs authorities about the change of office address, and the declared office was non-functional.
- Regulation 17(9): The CB did not exercise proper supervision over employees, who were found to be acting under the control of the freight forwarder.

The Tribunal concluded that the Customs Broker had violated the obligations under CBLR, 2013, justifying the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the appeal and confirming the revocation of the Customs Broker license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to cost.