Appellants vindicated as Tribunal overturns adverse actions, citing compliance with regulations and procedural flaws.

The Tribunal held that the appellants did not violate Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, as they had fulfilled their obligations by verifying documents from government authorities. The revocation of the CB Licence, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of the penalty were deemed unjustified. The Tribunal also found that the Principal Commissioner failed to comply with procedural requirements, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and all adverse actions against the appellants were overturned.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.
2. Revocation of CB Licence and forfeiture of security deposit.
3. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under CBLR, 2018.

Summary:

1. Alleged Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018:
The appellants were accused of violating Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, which mandates Customs Brokers to verify the correctness of IEC, GSTIN, identity, and functioning of their clients at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data, or information. The appellants contended that they had verified all necessary documents such as IEC, GSTIN, PAN, Aadhar, and others from official government websites and nationalized banks, fulfilling their obligations under Regulation 10(n). The Tribunal noted that the verification of documents issued by government authorities (IEC, GSTIN) does not require the Customs Broker to ensure the correctness of the issuance but only to verify their authenticity.

2. Revocation of CB Licence and Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The Principal Commissioner of Customs revoked the CB Licence and forfeited the security deposit, alleging that the Customs Broker had not conducted physical verification of the exporters' premises and had not informed the department about the untraceability of the exporters. The Tribunal found that physical verification is not an obligation under Regulation 10(n) and that the Customs Broker had fulfilled their duty by verifying the documents issued by various government authorities. The Tribunal referenced the case of M/S Anax Air Services Pvt Limited, emphasizing that Customs Brokers are not responsible for continuous surveillance of their clients.

3. Imposition of Penalty on the Appellant:
A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the appellants under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. The Tribunal concluded that since the appellants had not violated Regulation 10(n), the imposition of the penalty was not justified. The Tribunal reiterated that the Customs Broker's responsibility does not extend to verifying the correctness of the issuance of documents by government authorities.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under CBLR, 2018:
The appellants argued that the Principal Commissioner failed to pass the final order within ninety days from the date of submission of the Inquiry Report, as required under Regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Principal Commissioner did not follow the procedural requirements, making the impugned order legally unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner was incorrect in holding that the appellants violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. Consequently, the revocation of the CB Licence, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of the penalty were all set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---