Customs broker due diligence and inquiry timelines: directory limitation, no cross-examination denial, forfeiture upheld for verification lapses.

The time limit in Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was treated as directory on the facts, because the show cause notice was issued within 90 days of the occurrence report and the delay in inquiry was explained by the appellant's belated reply and repeated requests for cross-examination; the limitation objection failed. Effective cross-examination was not found to be denied, as the witness was given multiple opportunities to appear but failed to do so; that challenge failed. Failure to verify the client's antecedents, identity, IEC particulars, and functioning under Regulation 11(n) was proved, but conspiracy in attempted smuggling was not established, so forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld instead of licence revocation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the show cause notice and inquiry proceedings were barred by limitation under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013; (ii) whether denial of effective cross-examination vitiated the proceedings; and (iii) whether violation of Regulation 11(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 justified forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Issue (i): whether the show cause notice and inquiry proceedings were barred by limitation under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Analysis: The notice was issued within 90 days from receipt of the occurrence report. The delay in completing the inquiry was attributed to the appellant's belated reply and repeated opportunities sought for cross-examination of the concerned witness. The time prescription was treated as directory rather than mandatory in the light of the governing precedent, and the delay was found to be explained on the facts.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed.

Issue (ii): whether denial of effective cross-examination vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The record showed that the witness was given multiple opportunities to appear for cross-examination, but he failed to do so on each occasion. In these circumstances, the grievance that no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded was not accepted.

Conclusion: The challenge based on denial of cross-examination failed.

Issue (iii): whether violation of Regulation 11(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 justified forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Analysis: The evidence, including the statements of the employee and the managing partner, established failure to verify the antecedents, identity, IEC particulars, and functioning of the client as required by Regulation 11(n). At the same time, the findings did not establish conspiracy in the attempted smuggling, and the Commissioner therefore imposed only forfeiture of security deposit instead of revocation of licence.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of security deposit was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the impugned order sustaining only the monetary consequence was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The time limit in Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was treated as directory on the facts, and proven failure to comply with the client-verification obligation under Regulation 11(n) warranted a limited penalty instead of licence revocation where conspiracy was not established.

---