High Court quashes second Inquiry Report, directs proceedings as per first Report. No Customs Broker duty violation found under CBLR, 2018.

The High Court of Calcutta quashed the second Inquiry Report and directed proceedings based on the first Inquiry Report. The Tribunal found no violation of Customs Broker duties under CBLR, 2018, as the Broker complied with relevant regulations. The revocation of license and forfeiture of Security Deposit were set aside as allegations against the Broker were not proven. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the Broker.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Order dated 18.12.2021 based on the first Inquiry Report.
2. Duties of the Customs Broker under CBLR, 2018.
3. Legitimacy of the revocation of license and forfeiture of Security Deposit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Order dated 18.12.2021 based on the first Inquiry Report
The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta quashed the second Inquiry Report and directed the Principal Commissioner to proceed based on the first Inquiry Report. The Tribunal found no infirmity in finalizing the Show Cause Notice based on the first Inquiry Report.

Issue 2: Duties of the Customs Broker under CBLR, 2018
The Customs Broker was alleged to have violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), and 13(12) of the CBLR, 2018. The Tribunal examined each regulation:

- Regulation 10(a): The Customs Broker produced authorization from the importer, thus complying with this regulation.
- Regulation 10(d): The Customs Broker filed Bills of Entry based on the importer's documents. The misdeclaration was discovered only after DRI's investigation. The Tribunal held that there was no violation as the Customs Broker could not have known the goods were misdeclared.
- Regulation 10(e): No evidence showed the Customs Broker imparted incorrect information to the importer. The Tribunal found no violation.
- Regulation 10(f): No evidence indicated the Customs Broker withheld information from the client. The Tribunal found no violation.
- Regulation 13(12): The Tribunal found no evidence that the Customs Broker failed to supervise his employees properly. The alleged involvement of an external party, Shri Jyotirmoy Biswas, was unsupported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal held that the Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for the misdeclaration.

Issue 3: Legitimacy of the revocation of license and forfeiture of Security Deposit
The Tribunal concluded that the allegations against the Customs Broker were not proved. Consequently, the Order-in-Original dated 08.12.2021, which revoked the license and forfeited the Security Deposit, was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed with consequent relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the Customs Broker's license and the forfeiture of the Security Deposit, as the allegations were not substantiated. The Customs Broker was found to have complied with the relevant regulations under CBLR, 2018.

---