Tribunal's Decision Upheld: Customs Broker License Revocation Overturned Due to Lack of Evidence of Malpractice.

Commissioner Of Customs (Admn. & Airport) Versus M/s. Mallick Clearing Agency

Commissioner Of Customs (Admn. & Airport) Versus M/s. Mallick Clearing Agency - TMI Issues:
Whether setting aside the order in original by the Tribunal is justified when the respondent did not follow specific conditions under CBLR 2013, and whether the Tribunal's order is correct when the respondent did not obtain job clearance directly from the exporter.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta heard an appeal filed by the Customs department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The key issues revolved around the Tribunal setting aside the Commissioner of Customs' order revoking the Customs Broker License granted to the respondent under CBLR 2013. The Court considered whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which included revoking the license and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit under CBLR 2018.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought an interim order to allow the respondent to operate their Customs Broker License. However, the Court dismissed this request, emphasizing that the interim order did not bar a final hearing on the appeal's merits. The Court then delved into the central issue of whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Commissioner's order. The only allegation against the respondent was that they initiated clearance work without meeting the authorized person of the exporter and worked through intermediaries. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of malpractice or misfeasance beyond this. Notably, the Excise seal of the shipper was found intact, as admitted by the Department.

The Court also examined the Order-in-original, which revealed that the container's seals were intact before being broken. The Court highlighted that there was no investigation into how the seals were fixed or any official involvement in the process. The Tribunal's analysis concluded that the CBLR did not require physical verification of exporters or their premises. Additionally, the Court referenced a previous penalty imposed on the respondent's partner, which was later set aside by the Tribunal due to the lack of substantive evidence.

Further, the Court noted that criminal proceedings initiated against the partner of the respondent did not recommend prosecution, and verification by the DRI found nothing adverse against the firm or the individual. Considering these factors, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that it was a plausible view and dismissed the revenue's appeal, answering the substantial questions of law against the revenue.