2023 (11) TMI 115 - HC - Customs

Revenue loses appeal against customs broker license reinstatement after CESTAT cleared violations

Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General Versus M/s. ICS Cargo

Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General Versus M/s. ICS Cargo - 2024 (387) E.L.T. 396 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of Customs Broker License Regulations (CBLR), 2018 was mandatory to be followed while revoking the license.2. Whether the proceedings of revocation of license under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 could be initiated after the suspension of the license was revoked.3. Whether the appellant violated Regulation 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.Summary:Issue 1: Timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of CBLR, 2018The CESTAT decided that the timeline of Regulation 16 and 17 of CBLR, 2018 was mandatory and had been followed. The CESTAT referred to Regulation No. 14, 16, and 17 of the CBLR and Circular No. 9/10-Customs dated 08 April 2010, relying on the expression 'offence report.' It held that the SCN was issued within the mandatory period of 90 days from receipt of the 'offence report' and was not time-barred. The suspension of the license and its subsequent revocation did not preclude the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry under Regulation 14 and 17 of the CBLR.Issue 2: Initiation of Revocation Proceedings Post-SuspensionThe CESTAT ruled that the proceedings for revocation of the license under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 could be initiated even after the suspension of the license was revoked. The suspension under Regulation 16 is immediate and depends on the seriousness of the alleged offense, while Regulation 17 prescribes a complete procedure for hearing the concerned party.Issue 3: Violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018The CESTAT found that the appellant did not violate Regulation 10(a), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The CESTAT observed that the respondent/CHA had valid authorization to act on behalf of the companies in whose names the Bills of Entry were filed. There was no evidence that the appellant was aware of any misuse of IECs or that the appellant had any personal or pecuniary interest in the imports. The CESTAT concluded that the appellant had performed its duties diligently and that the allegations were based on presumptions and surmises.Analysis and Decision:The High Court found no merit in the appeal, stating that an appeal to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 lies only when the impugned order involves a substantial question of law. The Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the appreciation is perverse or manifestly erroneous. The CESTAT's findings were based on a meticulous examination of evidence, and there was no patent illegality or manifest error. The appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and was dismissed in limine.