Customs Broker licence revocation requires a specific lawful breach, not presumptions or mechanically repeated orders.

A Customs Broker licence cannot be revoked, security deposit forfeited, or penalty imposed through a mechanically repeated order or on a deemed future contingency under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018; the provision contemplates a specific, operative order on the inquiry report. The alleged breaches of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) and 10(n) were also not proved, as the record did not establish failure to advise the client, lack of due diligence, withholding of information, deficient record-keeping, or inadequate antecedent verification. The revocation and connected penal consequences were therefore held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second order directing revocation of the Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty was legally sustainable under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. (ii) Whether the alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 were proved.

Issue (i): Whether the second order directing revocation of the Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty was legally sustainable under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: Regulation 17(7) contemplates a specific order on the inquiry report, either revoking suspension or revoking the licence, in respect of an existing and operative licence position. A fresh order purporting to revoke a licence already revoked by an earlier order, or a so-called deemed revocation to operate on a future contingency, has no support in the regulation. The impugned order was therefore passed without legal authority and in a mechanically repetitive manner.

Conclusion: The second revocation order, along with the connected forfeiture and penalty, is unsustainable and is set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 were proved.

Analysis: The material did not establish that the Customs Broker had failed to advise the client, failed to exercise due diligence, withheld information, failed to maintain records, or failed to undertake proper antecedent verification. The findings were based on presumptions rather than concrete evidence, and the KYC verification undertaken was found adequate in the circumstances. The charges were also considered in the light of the earlier co-ordinate Bench decision on the same broker and similar facts.

Conclusion: The alleged contraventions were not proved and cannot sustain the penal and revocation consequences.

Final Conclusion: Both impugned orders were held to be unsustainable in law and on facts, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs broker's licence cannot be revoked or penal consequences imposed on the basis of presumptions or mechanically repeated orders; the inquiry must establish a specific, legally sustainable breach of the broker's statutory obligations under the licensing regulations.

---