Customs broker licence revocation found disproportionate where no wrongful advice was shown and the import was later regularised.

Customs broker licence revocation was held disproportionate where no material showed wrongful advice or furnishing of incorrect information, and the import issue had later been regularised in the Covid-19 context. The tribunal found that the broker's obligation is to advise compliance and exercise due diligence, but the alleged omission did not justify the extreme sanction of revocation once the underlying import was permitted. The penalty was also reduced because the lapse did not result in duty evasion or a continuing substantive contravention, and the punishment had to remain commensurate with the omission and the ends of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether revocation of the customs broker licence was justified for alleged violation of the obligations under Regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed required reduction in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether revocation of the customs broker licence was justified for alleged violation of the obligations under Regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: The obligation of a customs broker is to advise the client to comply with the law and to exercise due diligence in relation to cargo clearance. The impugned goods had initially been treated as prohibited, but the proceedings against the importers were dropped after relaxation was granted in view of the Covid-19 situation. No material established that the customs broker had furnished wrongful information to the clients. In the circumstances, any omission was found to have been mitigated by the later permission for import, and the extreme consequence of licence revocation was held to be disproportionate.

Conclusion: Revocation of the customs broker licence was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed required reduction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Since the alleged lapse did not result in evasion of duty or a substantive contravention surviving after the later relaxation, the punishment was considered harsh. The penalty was required to be commensurate with the nature of the omission and to serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified by removing the revocation of licence and by substituting a lesser monetary penalty, thereby granting partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the underlying import is later regularised or permitted in the same emergency context, and no wrongful advice or material prejudice is shown, the extreme penalty of customs broker licence revocation is disproportionate and may be replaced by a lesser sanction.

---