Customs broker license revocation overturned after wrongful liability for client's Red Sanders mis-declaration and KYC failures

CESTAT Mumbai-AT allowed appeal against revocation of customs broker license. Appellant CB was wrongly held liable for violations of CBLR Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) regarding mis-declaration of Red Sanders as Kraft paper and inadequate KYC verification. Tribunal found appellant CB had no role in export transaction handled by different CB at Pune, and citing Delhi HC precedent, held CB cannot be expected to identify mis-declarations. Order revoking license, forfeiting security deposit, and imposing penalty was set aside as legally unsustainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018.
2. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.
3. Revocation of Customs Broker License (CB License).
4. Forfeiture of Security Deposit.
5. Imposition of Penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018:
The adjudicating authority concluded that the appellants Customs Broker (CB) violated Regulation 10(d) by not advising their client to comply with the Customs Act and failing to report non-compliance to the Customs authorities. The appellants CB did not personally meet the exporter and obtained documents from a former employee, Shri Gopinath Patil. The investigation revealed that the appellants CB did not inform the customs authorities about the delay in the export consignment from Pune to JNCH, Nhava Sheva. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants CB was not directly involved in the export transaction, which was handled by another CB, M/s. Exim Management Services. Therefore, the appellants CB could not have known about the mis-declaration or delay and was not obligated to report it. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants CB did not violate Regulation 10(d).

2. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018:
The Principal Commissioner of Customs found that the appellants CB violated Regulation 10(n) by not verifying the correctness of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) and other credentials of the exporter. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants CB had initially obtained the KYC documents and transferred them to another CB, M/s. Exim Management Services, who handled the export consignment. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in Kunal Travels (Cargo) vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, which stated that a CB is not expected to verify the genuineness of every transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants CB did not violate Regulation 10(n).

3. Revocation of Customs Broker License (CB License):
The Principal Commissioner of Customs revoked the appellants CB license based on the alleged violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). However, the Tribunal found that the appellants CB was not responsible for the export transaction and did not violate the said regulations. Therefore, the revocation of the CB license was deemed unjustified and was set aside.

4. Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The Principal Commissioner of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the security deposit based on the alleged violations. Since the Tribunal found no violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) by the appellants CB, the forfeiture of the security deposit was also set aside.

5. Imposition of Penalty:
The penalty imposed on the appellants CB was based on the alleged violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). As the Tribunal concluded that there were no such violations, the imposition of the penalty was deemed unsustainable and was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2024, which included the revocation of the CB license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty. The findings in the impugned order were found to be contrary to the facts on record, and the appellants CB was not held responsible for the alleged violations.

---