Customs broker license revocation overturned after violations of CBLR 2018 Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(n) unproven

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal against revocation of customs broker license. The tribunal held that violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR 2018 were not established. The customs broker had proper authorization from exporter, used authorized employee, acted as facilitator filing documents provided by exporter, and verified valid IEC from DGFT website. Since alleged regulatory violations were unsubstantiated, the license revocation and penalty were unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Revocation of Customs Broker License under CBLR, 2018 and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Customs Broker, appealed against the revocation of their license and imposition of a penalty under CBLR, 2018. The case involved the clearance of export consignments of Cow Leather Wallet and subsequent investigations revealing alleged overvaluation by the exporter.

2. The adjudication process led to the dropping of penalty imposition on the appellant by the Ld. Additional Commissioner. However, observations in the Order in Original suggested violations of Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 by the Customs Broker.

3. The appellant contested the violations, arguing that the observations were beyond the scope of the original show cause notice. They refuted the allegations under each regulation:
- Regulation 10(a): No requirement to verify exporter's signature in the authorization.
- Regulation 10(b): Job undertaken by an employee with a pending license application, not unauthorized.
- Regulation 10(d): CB's role as a facilitator, not responsible for exporter's mis-declaration.
- Regulation 10(n): Verification of exporter's details through reliable sources like DGFT website.

4. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the alleged violations and the absence of opportunities for the appellant to counter the allegations. The impugned order was found unsustainable due to unsubstantiated claims against the Customs Broker.

5. After detailed analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and ruling the penalty imposed on the appellant as unsustainable. The decision was made in favor of the appellant with consequential relief as per law.

---