Customs broker licence revocation set aside after proper oil import clearance and duty payment under CBLR 2018

CESTAT Kolkata set aside the revocation of customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit imposed under CBLR 2018. The case involved edible oil imports in Bangladeshi tankers with proper customs clearance and duty payment. The broker faced penalties when Indian tankers carrying transferred oil were temporarily inaccessible due to congested parking arrangements. The tribunal found no mens rea or wrongdoing, noting that goods were properly assessed, duties paid, investigations cooperated with, and vehicles eventually released. The harsh action was deemed unjustified given ground realities and bona fide conduct. The customs broker licence was ordered restored with consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence and forfeiture of security deposit.
2. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
3. Alleged violation of regulation 10(n) leading to revocation of licence.
4. Compliance with directions from DRI regarding imported goods.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(j) and Section 111(k) of the Act.
7. Application of Regulation 10(d) & 10(e) of the CBLR.
8. Lack of justification for punitive action against Customs Broker.

On the first issue of revocation of Customs Broker Licence and forfeiture of security deposit, the appellant challenged the subsequent revocation order issued within two months of the initial revocation. The Tribunal noted that the initial revocation order was quashed in a previous judgment. The appellant argued that an already revoked licence cannot be revoked again during the currency of the previous revocation order.

Regarding compliance with DRI directions on imported goods, the appellant had filed Bills of Entry for importers and complied with instructions to recall oil tankers for examination. Subsequently, penalties were imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, which the appellant contested, claiming no offence was committed.

In analyzing the case, the Tribunal observed that the impugned show cause notice was issued for confiscation of goods under Section 111(j) and Section 111(k) of the Act. The appellant's compliance with regulations and lack of unauthorized import routes were highlighted to argue against the charges.

The Tribunal further examined the obligations of a Customs Broker under Regulation 10, emphasizing due diligence in compliance with customs laws. The lack of infrastructure at Ghojadanga Land Customs Station was detailed to support the appellant's contentions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justification for the punitive actions taken against the Customs Broker. The charges were deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of the Customs Broker License. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.

---