Customs broker license revoked for facilitating gold smuggling through false diplomatic cargo declarations under CBLR 2018

CESTAT Bangalore upheld the revocation of a customs broker's license and forfeiture of security deposit for facilitating gold smuggling through diplomatic cargo declarations. The broker violated CBLR 2018 regulations by failing to verify consignor details, not filing proper documentation, and not reporting non-compliance to customs despite knowing the consignor was not affiliated with UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The tribunal rejected arguments regarding time-barred notice, non-production of documents, and refusal of cross-examination, finding these were delay tactics. The broker's actions constituted violations of regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n) of CBLR 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred notice.
2. Non-production of relevant documents.
3. Refusal of cross-examination.
4. Violation of provisions of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.

Summary:

1. Time-barred notice:

Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 mandates that a notice must be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report. In this case, the offence report was dated 08.10.2021, and the show-cause notice was issued on 28.12.2021, within the prescribed time limit. The appellant's argument regarding the delay in the inquiry report submission was dismissed, as the notice itself was not time-barred.

2. Non-production of relevant documents:

The appellant claimed that the offence report and other relied upon documents were not provided, which hindered their ability to counter the allegations. However, the tribunal noted that the required documents, including the offence report, were eventually provided to the appellant, and they were given an opportunity to make submissions based on these documents. Thus, the claim of non-production of documents was found to be without merit.

3. Refusal of cross-examination:

The appellant requested cross-examination of Customs Officers and staff who cleared the consignment. The Commissioner found this request unnecessary as these officers had no direct relevance to the case. The tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the request appeared to be a delay tactic.

4. Violation of provisions of the CBLR, 2018:

The appellant was found to have violated several provisions of the CBLR, 2018, including Regulation 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n). The appellant failed to verify the authenticity of documents and mis-declared consignor details, facilitating the smuggling of gold. The tribunal noted that the appellant's actions demonstrated a lack of due diligence and compliance with the regulations, justifying the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty.

Conclusion:

The tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and confirming the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty on the appellant.

---