Customs Broker liability fails where retracted statements lack corroboration and origin certificates are not proved false or forged.

A Customs Broker was found not liable for alleged violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 where the case rested mainly on a retracted statement and electronic chats without independent corroboration. The record showed authorisation by the importer, and the Tribunal held that a broker is not required to personally meet the importer or investigate the genuineness of government-issued documents beyond verifying the documents and particulars furnished. Because there was no reliable proof that the certificates of origin were false or forged, the allegations of connivance, abetment and regulatory breach failed, and the revocation, forfeiture and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(a), Regulation 10(d), Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. (ii) Whether the Customs Broker connived with the importer and abetted the alleged misdeclaration of country of origin.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(a), Regulation 10(d), Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: The alleged violations rested mainly on the proprietor's statements and electronic chats, but the statements had been retracted and were not supported by independent corroboration. The record showed that the importers had not denied authorization of the appellant, one authorization was on record, and there was no requirement that the Customs Broker personally meet the importer. The Tribunal held that the Customs Broker is not required to investigate the genuineness of government-issued documents or undertake an inquisitorial role beyond verifying the documents and particulars furnished by the client. The evidence did not establish that the certificates of origin were forged or false, and the material on record was insufficient to sustain breach of the regulatory duties of authorization, advice, due diligence, or verification.

Conclusion: The alleged violations of Regulation 10(a), Regulation 10(d), Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n) were not proved against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs Broker connived with the importer and abetted the alleged misdeclaration of country of origin.

Analysis: The finding of abetment depended substantially on the same retracted statement and on the assumption that the country-of-origin certificates were false. Since no cogent evidence established that the certificates were forged or that the goods were in fact of another origin, the foundation for alleging conspiracy, instigation, intentional aid, or mastermind conduct failed. In the absence of reliable proof of the alleged false origin or corroboration of the supposed confession, the charge of abetment could not stand.

Conclusion: The allegation of connivance and abetment was not proved against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revocation, forfeiture and penalty were unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs Broker cannot be penalised for alleged misdeclaration or regulatory breach on the basis of a retracted statement alone, without independent corroboration and without proof that the underlying government-issued documents were false or forged; the broker is not an investigator required to verify the truth of the transaction beyond the documents furnished by the client.

---