Customs broker liability under CBLR turns on authorised role, KYC verification, and proof of knowing participation in fraud.

Under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, a customs broker is liable only for duties within its authorised role: filing and clearance work may be done through an authorised employee, and no breach of Regulation 10(b) was established where the broker's involvement was limited and the record did not show use of an unauthorised person. No breach of Regulation 10(d) was shown where the broker facilitated import processing within the customs framework without evidence of unlawful advice or assistance. No breach of Regulation 10(n) was proved where KYC documents were government-issued or verifiable, and there was no proof of knowledge of fraud or any legally required failure of verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(b) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by permitting an unauthorised person to handle customs clearance formalities; (ii) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by not advising the importer to comply with the applicable import requirements for cosmetics; (iii) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by failing to verify the importer's identity and KYC particulars.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(b) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by permitting an unauthorised person to handle customs clearance formalities.

Analysis: The record showed that the Customs Broker's work was limited to filing the bill of entry and that the relevant documents were handled by its authorised employee. The statement of the concerned importer-side person also supported that the Broker did not participate in the later clearance steps. On the plain language of the regulation, the transaction at the customs station may be carried out personally or through an authorised employee, and the material did not establish any breach of that requirement.

Conclusion: No violation of Regulation 10(b) was made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by not advising the importer to comply with the applicable import requirements for cosmetics.

Analysis: The bill of entry was filed for warehousing and re-export purposes because the required no objection certificate was not available at the time of import. The goods were later released after the requisite clearance was obtained. There was no material showing that the Customs Broker had advised or assisted any unlawful diversion of the goods, and the Broker's role remained confined to facilitating the import procedure under the customs framework.

Conclusion: No violation of Regulation 10(d) was made out.

Issue (iii): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by failing to verify the importer's identity and KYC particulars.

Analysis: The KYC documents relied upon by the Customs Broker were government-issued or verifiable documents, and there was no finding that they were forged. The law does not require a customs broker to conduct a physical background investigation in every case, and verification from official portals was sufficient on the facts. The absence of proof that the Broker knew of the importer's misuse or fraudulent design was material, and the Broker could not be faulted for the importer's later misconduct after clearance.

Conclusion: No violation of Regulation 10(n) was made out.

Final Conclusion: The licence revocation was unsustainable because the alleged regulatory breaches were not established on the evidence, and the Customs Broker could not be held responsible for the importer's independent fraudulent conduct after completion of its limited role.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs broker is accountable for proper facilitation and verification within the scope of its authorised role, but revocation cannot rest on importer misconduct absent proof that the broker knowingly aided, participated in, or failed in a legally required duty of verification or advice.

---