Tribunal overturns order, no charges proved. License revocation and deposit forfeiture deemed unwarranted. Appeal allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding that none of the charges against the appellant were proved. The revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were deemed unwarranted, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with 'time-lines' prescribed in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.
2. Allegation of 'sub-letting' the customs broker license.
3. Breach of various regulations under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Summary:

1. Compliance with 'time-lines' prescribed in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013:
The appellant argued that the 'time-lines' prescribed in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, were not adhered to, rendering the actions of the licensing authority invalid. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had allowed the suspension to continue subject to the completion of the enquiry within three months from 23rd September 2015. However, the proceedings commenced on 15th April 2014 and concluded with the order dated 17th February 2016, breaching the prescribed 'time-lines'. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Unison Clearing Pvt Ltd, emphasizing that adherence to the time schedule is mandatory. The lack of a firm finding of contributory negligence on the part of the customs broker and the non-observance of the mandatory requirement jeopardized the revocation of the license.

2. Allegation of 'sub-letting' the customs broker license:
The primary charge against the appellant was the breach of regulation 10, alleging that the license had been 'sub-let' to employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders. The inquiry concluded that the two individuals were employed by M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders and not by the appellant, thus constituting 'sub-letting'. However, the Tribunal found that the business models of customs brokers could vary and mere presence of another entity does not constitute 'sub-letting'. The Tribunal noted that the Regulations do not prohibit part-time employment elsewhere and found insufficient evidence to establish the charge of 'sub-letting'.

3. Breach of various regulations under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013:
The appellant was also charged with not knowing the customer and failing to discharge duties with utmost speed and efficiency, among other breaches. The Tribunal found that the customs broker had obtained authorization, albeit indirectly, and the allegations of breach of regulations 11(d) and 11(e) did not stand as the employees were authorized by the appellant. Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced the decision in East West Freight Carriers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (General) to support that there was no delay or inefficiency on the part of the appellant. The findings against the appellant on these charges were not sustained.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding that none of the charges against the appellant were proved. The revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were deemed unwarranted, and the appeal was allowed.

---