Customs Broker liability requires proven complicity or knowledge; authorisation-based filing alone cannot justify revocation or penalty.

A Customs Broker's licence could not be revoked, security deposit forfeited, or penalty imposed where the record did not prove complicity, knowledge of misdeclaration, or grave lack of due diligence. Acting on an importer's authorisation letter, without evidence of intentional involvement or wilful disregard, was insufficient to establish contraventions of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. Earlier findings exonerating the broker on the same material also remained unchallenged, reinforcing that the extreme regulatory consequences were unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs Broker had violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 so as to justify revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty.

Analysis: The Customs Broker acted on the basis of an authorisation letter issued by the importer and the material on record did not establish that it had knowledge of any concealment or misdeclaration in the imported goods. The earlier adjudication had already exonerated the Customs Broker from penal consequences under the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of the same authorisation, and those findings had not been challenged. The record did not show any evidence of complicity, wilful disregard, or lack of due diligence sufficient to sustain the alleged contraventions under the licensing regulations. In the absence of proof of intentional involvement or grave misconduct, the extreme consequences of revocation and forfeiture could not be justified.

Conclusion: The alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) were not established, and the orders revoking the licence, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs Broker cannot be subjected to revocation, forfeiture or penalty unless the record shows proven complicity, knowledge of the illegality, or grave lack of due diligence; mere filing of documents on the basis of an authorisation letter is insufficient.

---