Customs broker license suspension overturned, penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed for Regulation 10(d) violation instead of revocation

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal against CB license suspension. The tribunal found violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR 2018 for failure to file correct bills of entry and advise importers properly, but rejected charges under Regulation 10(e) as unsustainable due to lack of factual basis. While acknowledging slight procedural delays, the tribunal found no inordinate delay in proceedings. The license revocation and security deposit forfeiture were set aside, but a penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed for failure to exercise due diligence under Regulation 10(d).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
2. Timeliness of inquiry proceedings under CBLR, 2018.
3. Revocation of Customs Broker License, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of CBLR, 2018:
Regulation 10(d):
The Principal Commissioner of Customs concluded that the appellants violated Regulation 10(d) by failing to advise their clients to comply with customs laws and not informing the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs about the mis-declaration of imported goods. The appellants argued that there was no evidence to prove that they abetted or colluded with the importers. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had the correct packing lists but did not provide them to the customs department, leading to gross mis-declaration. Thus, the violation of Regulation 10(d) was upheld.

Regulation 10(e):
The appellants were charged with failing to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correctness of the information imparted to their clients. The Tribunal noted that the correct packing lists were available with the appellants but were not used for filing the Bills of Entry (B/Es). Despite this, the Tribunal found that the charge under Regulation 10(e) was not sustainable as the appellants were not expected to verify the genuineness of the documents provided by the importers. Therefore, the violation of Regulation 10(e) was not upheld.

2. Timeliness of Inquiry Proceedings under CBLR, 2018:
The appellants argued that the inquiry proceedings were conducted and finalized beyond the 90-day time limit specified under Regulation 17(5) of CBLR, 2018. The Principal Commissioner of Customs relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Vs. Unison Clearing P Ltd., which stated that the timelines under CBLR are directory in nature and not mandatory. The Tribunal found no inordinate delay in the proceedings and concluded that the timelines were reasonably adhered to.

3. Revocation of Customs Broker License, Forfeiture of Security Deposit, and Imposition of Penalty:
The Principal Commissioner of Customs revoked the appellants' Customs Broker License, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal found no merit in the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit, as the violation of Regulation 10(e) was not established. However, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty for the violation of Regulation 10(d), but reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000, considering the appellants' failure to act proactively in fulfilling their obligations.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order by revoking the penalty under Regulation 10(e) and reducing the penalty for the violation of Regulation 10(d) to Rs. 10,000. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, with the revocation of the Customs Broker License and forfeiture of the security deposit being set aside.

---