2025 (5) TMI 86 - AT - Customs

Customs broker penalized for failing due diligence and client advisory duties under Licensing Regulations 2018

Shri Manjunatha Cargo Pvt., Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

Shri Manjunatha Cargo Pvt., Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) by failing to advise the importer to comply with Customs laws and procedures, and failing to bring non-compliance to the notice of Customs authorities.Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 by failing to verify the correctness of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC), Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of the client, and the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable and authentic documents.Whether the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, including forfeiture of the entire security deposit and imposition of a monetary penalty, was justified and proportionate under Regulations 14 and 18 of CBLR, 2018.The extent of the Customs Broker's responsibility and due diligence obligations in verifying the antecedents of the importer and advising the client, especially when the Bill of Entry was filed from a different Customs Broker office location.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Alleged Violation of Regulation 10(d) - Advising Client and Reporting Non-ComplianceRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 10(d) mandates that a Customs Broker must advise clients to comply with the Customs Act and allied laws and report any non-compliance to the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Precedents emphasize the role of the Customs Broker as an advisor and facilitator, not as an inspector or investigator of the genuineness of transactions or valuation.Notably, the Tribunal relied on previous decisions where it was held that Customs Brokers cannot be faulted for mis-declaration when they file Bills of Entry based on documents provided by importers and are unaware of any mis-declaration. For example, the Tribunal cited a ruling stating that 'the appellants CB cannot be found fault that he did not advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act' when mis-declaration was discovered only after physical examination and market inquiry.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The adjudicating authority found that the Customs Broker's Director was unaware of an employee working at the Chennai office who handled the Bill of Entry filing. This lack of knowledge was held to indicate the Customs Broker could not properly advise the importer on Customs law compliance. However, the Customs Broker contended that the Bangalore office filed the Bill of Entry due to the Chennai office employee being on leave and that oral advice was given to the importer regarding compliance requirements.The Tribunal acknowledged that the Customs Broker had orally advised the importer and that the filing from a different office was due to operational reasons. Yet, the Tribunal held that given the circumstances, the Customs Broker ought to have exercised additional care and diligence in advising the importer and ensuring compliance, especially since the Bill of Entry was filed from a different location.Key Evidence and Findings: The investigation revealed a significant excess in declared cargo weight, indicating mis-declaration. Statements from the Customs Broker's personnel were recorded, and it was found that the Bangalore office filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of the Chennai importer. The Director's lack of awareness of the Chennai employee was a critical finding supporting the violation of Regulation 10(d).Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments: While the Customs Broker argued compliance through oral advice and filing based on importer documents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of due diligence and proper communication within the Customs Broker's organization. The Court balanced the Broker's operational constraints against their regulatory obligations and found the Broker fell short in advising and reporting non-compliance adequately.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d) by failing to properly advise the importer and by inadequate internal coordination, which hindered effective compliance advisories.Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Regulation 10(n) - Verification of Client's AntecedentsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 10(n) requires Customs Brokers to verify the correctness of IEC, GSTIN, client identity, and client's functioning at the declared address using reliable, independent, and authentic documents or data. The CBIC Circular No. 9/2010-Customs dated 08.04.2010 prescribes KYC norms for Customs Brokers, including obtaining at least two specified documents for verification.Precedents emphasize that physical verification of the client's premises is not mandatory; verification through authentic government-issued documents such as IEC and GSTIN is sufficient. The Tribunal cited rulings where it was held that Customs Brokers are not expected to conduct investigations or confront importers about discrepancies; such powers rest with statutory authorities. It was also held that Customs Brokers are not Customs officers and cannot be expected to detect mis-declarations or investigate the genuineness of transactions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Inquiry Officer split Regulation 10(n) into two parts: verification of documents (KYC) and ascertaining antecedents (background) of the client. The Inquiry Officer accepted that KYC was done but found fault with the Customs Broker for not verifying the antecedents, based on a Commercial Tax Department registration certificate indicating a different business activity than the imported goods.The Tribunal held that relying on the registration certificate to infer non-compliance without giving the Customs Broker an opportunity to meet this allegation was improper. Further, the Tribunal emphasized that verifying antecedents beyond authentic documents is not the Customs Broker's duty and that the Broker cannot be expected to investigate or confront the importer.Key Evidence and Findings: The Customs Broker had obtained KYC documents, including IEC and GSTIN, which showed the importer's address and registration. The Commercial Tax Department's registration certificate was examined but was not part of the original show cause notice or inquiry scope. The Broker's failure to confront the importer on this was deemed irrelevant as the Broker's role is not investigatory.Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Customs Broker argued that KYC compliance was complete and that the Broker cannot be held responsible for discrepancies in the importer's business activities as per other government registrations. The Tribunal agreed, relying on precedents that the Broker's duty is limited to document verification and not investigation.Conclusion: The Tribunal found no violation of Regulation 10(n) in respect of the Broker's verification of the importer's antecedents beyond KYC norms. The allegation of failure to verify antecedents was not sustainable.Issue 3: Justification and Quantum of Penalty and ForfeitureRelevant Legal Framework: Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018 empowers the Commissioner to revoke a Customs Broker's license and forfeit security deposits for violations. Regulation 18 authorizes imposition of penalties up to Rs. 50,000 on Customs Brokers for contraventions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The adjudicating authority imposed full forfeiture of the security deposit and penalty of Rs. 50,000 based on violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). The Tribunal found that while there was a violation of Regulation 10(d), the violation of Regulation 10(n) was not established. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal deemed the penalty and forfeiture excessive.Key Evidence and Findings: The excess quantity found in the container and the mis-declaration supported a finding of failure to advise and exercise due diligence. However, the Broker's partial compliance and mitigating factors warranted reduction of the penalty.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied principles of proportionality and fairness in penalty imposition, reducing the forfeiture to 15% of the security deposit and the penalty to Rs. 10,000.Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of penalty quantum and security forfeiture, substituting reduced amounts while upholding the finding of violation of Regulation 10(d).3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal established the following core principles and determinations:'The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through customs house... It would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of the IE Code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction.''Verification of the client operating from the address can be done by the Customs Broker through independent and authentic documents, data or information. The importer exporter code (IEC) issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade and the GSTIN issued by the GST department both qualify as authentic documents... It is reasonable for the Customs Broker to trust that these documents have been correctly issued by the officers and proceed accordingly.''The Customs Broker ought to have taken additional care to inform the importer about the Customs law and procedures and also ought to have exercised due diligence in such a case.'Final determinations:The Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 by failing to adequately advise the importer and exercise due diligence in the circumstances where the Bill of Entry was filed from a different office.The Customs Broker did not violate Regulation 10(n) as it complied with KYC requirements by verifying the importer's identity and documents; it was not required to investigate or confront the importer regarding discrepancies in other registrations.The penalty and forfeiture imposed were excessive and were accordingly reduced to 15% of the security deposit and Rs. 10,000 respectively.