Customs broker penalty of Rs.50,000 set aside under Regulation 18 for E-Cigarette mis-declaration case

CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the Rs.50,000 penalty imposed on a customs broker under Regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018. The case involved mis-declared and prohibited goods including E-Cigarettes. The tribunal found that the customs broker had fulfilled all KYC obligations under Regulation 10(n) regarding their client, the importer, and acted with due diligence. The broker provided necessary assistance to investigating authorities, promptly informed about mis-declaration, and cooperated fully. The tribunal held that customs brokers cannot be expected to act as investigating agencies beyond their statutory obligations of client verification.

---

---

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018
- Allegations against Customs Broker for failure to verify antecedents of actual beneficiary
- Compliance with Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 by Customs Broker
- Justification of penalty imposed on Customs Broker

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs.50,000 under Regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018. The case stemmed from an investigation initiated by Customs Preventive, New Delhi following an alert regarding mis-declared and prohibited goods in a high-risk import consignment. The Customs Broker, M/s. Mahavir Logistics, was alleged to have failed in verifying the antecedents of the actual beneficiary, Shri Ashok Kumar, who handled the import on behalf of the declared importer, M/s. Aparna Overseas. The Inquiry Officer found the Customs Broker did not conduct due diligence regarding the actual beneficiary, leading to the penalty imposition.

The primary issue revolved around whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The regulation mandates verifying the correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, GSTIN, and client identity. The Tribunal observed that the Customs Broker had fulfilled its obligations by obtaining all KYC documents of the importer, M/s. Aparna Overseas, and verifying their address and credentials. The regulation only imposes obligations on the Customs Broker concerning their client, the importer in this case, which the Customs Broker had diligently fulfilled, leading to a finding of no contravention of Regulation 10(n).

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Customs Broker had cooperated with the investigating authorities by providing necessary assistance and information, enabling the tracing of the actual beneficiary, Shri Ashok Kumar. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs Broker's role was not to act as an investigating agency but to ensure compliance with KYC formalities of their client. The judgment highlighted that the Customs Broker's sincere cooperation and fulfillment of obligations absolved them from any penalty imposition under the CBLR Regulations.

The Tribunal further critiqued the Adjudicating Authority's emphasis on identifying the beneficial owner, noting that the Customs Broker cannot be burdened with verifying the actual beneficiary beyond their client. The judgment underscored that the Customs Broker's belief that Shri Ashok Kumar was a representative of the importer was reasonable, given the information available. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the penalty imposed on the Customs Broker unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the Customs Broker.

---