Customs broker license revocation set aside due to premature proceedings based on unproven CBI allegations

CESTAT Bangalore set aside the revocation of a customs broker license and penalty imposed for alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(i). The case involved allegations that an appraiser at CFS Chennai demanded bribes from customs house agents for export orders. The tribunal found the proceedings premature as they were based solely on a pending CBI report with unproven allegations. The court noted inconsistent penalties imposed on different brokers for similar charges and ruled that the broker cannot be penalized for employee actions without proof of authorization. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 and 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2018 based on alleged contravention of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(i) of the CBLR.

Revocation of License and Imposition of Penalty:
The appeal was against an Order revoking the license of the appellant (Customs Broker) along with forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Regulations 14 and 18 of the CBLR 2018. The revocation was based on alleged contravention of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(i) of the CBLR.

Allegations and Defense:
It was alleged that the appellant's employee collected a bribe amount for clearance of a Shipping Bill, leading to the revocation of the license. The appellant argued that the amount collected was for legitimate expenses and not a bribe. The appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was denied. The appellant cited precedents to argue that they should not be held liable for the actions of their employees.

Judicial Findings:
The Tribunal found that the allegations were based on a preliminary CBI report and were yet to be corroborated with evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Regulations cited for revocation and penalty were not proven to have been contravened. The Tribunal also considered precedents stating that the appellant cannot be penalized for the actions of their employees without proof of authorization.

Decision:
Based on the lack of concrete evidence and premature nature of the proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the Order revoking the license and imposing a penalty, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the proceedings remained as allegations without a solid basis, pending further adjudication by the competent court.

---