2025 (9) TMI 1642 - AT - Customs

Broker cleared of alleged breaches of CBLR 2018 Regulations 10(b),10(d),10(m),10(n),10(q); penalties revoked and security forfeiture set aside, appeal allowed

CESTAT held that the customs broker's alleged breaches of Regulations 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) and 10(q) of the CBLR, 2018 were not substantiated. The ... Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - alleged overvaluation of export goods - appellant failed miserably to perform ‘due diligence’ in as much as he did not accept the documents from the exporter but accepted it from unrelated persons - initiation of two separate proceedings against the appellant-CB - violations of Regulations 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) and 10(q) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). Violation of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- Regulation 10(b) of CBLR mandates that the CB has to transact business personally or through his authorized representative. In the present case, it is observed that there is no allegation that the Appellant C.B. did not transact the business personally in the Customs station. The allegation is all about no physical verification of exporter and export documents received through third party. The transactions of business in relation to customs Station is the idea behind Regulation 10(b). Transaction of business in customs station in case of exports is filing of shipping bills along with the invoice, packing list, checklist and all other requisite documents. Though in today’s era of virtual transactions/online processing, physical presence in customs house for transacting the business is not required, the Appellant presence in processing the export documents at the customs station is not disputed. Thus, the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(b) against the appellant is not substantiated. Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the export documents were found in order except a mismatch of vehicle number in supplier’s e-way bill. There was no mismatch of quantity and quality of the export goods. There is nothing on record which prove that the appellant acquired any knowledge about any intentional change in the documents forwarded by the exporter. Thus, the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(d) against the appellant is not substantiated. Violation of Regulation 10(m) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- The charge against the C.B. is that he did not cross check/verify the details mentioned in his possession. However, the fact on record does not support that there was any delay on part of the Appellant and that he did not discharge his duties with desired speed and efficiency. Thus, the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(m) against the appellant is not substantiated. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- The existence of the exporter is not doubt. It is on record that the C.B. was in possession of IEC, GSTIN, Aadhar card and PAN card of the exporter. The authenticity of all the documents submitted by the appellant is established. We observe that genuineness of these documents are sufficient compliance of the regulatio 10(n). Thus, the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(n) against the appellant is not substantiated. Violation of Regulation 10(q) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- The Appellant cannot be held responsible for non-appearance of third person before the Customs Authorities and based on such allegation contravention of Regulation 10 (q) of the CBLR cannot be said to be sustained. It is found that the appellant CB has cooperated with the investigation and offered his assistance at all times. As there is no allegation of non cooperation on the part of the appellant, the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(q) against the appellant is not substantiated. The allegations of violation of the regulations 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) and 10(q) of CBLR, 2018 by the Customs Broker has not been substantiated. Accordingly, the impugned orders (both the orders) revoking the license of the appellant CB is not sustainable - As the allegations against the CB are not substantiated, the forfeiture of pre deposit and imposition of penalty on the appellant in the impugned order are not sustainable and hence the same is set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Customs Broker's licence could be revoked and penalty/forfeiture imposed for alleged violations of Regulations 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) and 10(q) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) arising out of suspected overvaluation of export consignments. 2. Whether a Customs Broker can be held liable under the CBLR for overvaluation or other misconduct attributable to the exporter when the broker files documents furnished by the exporter and those documents appear authentic on their face. 3. Whether the Customs Broker breached the duties of transacting business at the customs station, advising the client about statutory compliance, performing duties with speed and efficiency, verifying correctness of IEC/GSTIN/client identity and address, and cooperating in investigation, as required by Regulations 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) and 10(q) respectively. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Violation of Regulation 10(b): Transacting business in Customs Station Legal framework: Regulation 10(b) mandates that a Customs Broker transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an authorized employee approved by the proper officer. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal examined practical realities of online/virtual processing and previous authorities cited by the appellant which treat document filing at the customs station as the operative act for 'transacting business'. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found no allegation or evidence that the broker did not transact business at the customs station; the appellant's presence in processing export documents was not disputed; in modern practice physical presence is not essential if statutory filing is performed. The allegation concerned lack of physical verification of exporter and documents received via third parties, which does not equate to non-transaction at the customs station. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - holding that mere receipt of documents through third parties or lack of extraneous physical verification does not ipso facto violate Regulation 10(b) where the broker has transacted the business at the customs station. Conclusion: Allegation of breach of Regulation 10(b) was not substantiated; revocation on this ground unsustainable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Violation of Regulation 10(d): Advising client to comply with law Legal framework: Regulation 10(d) requires the broker to advise clients to comply with the Act and allied laws and to report non-compliance to the proper officer. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered authorities holding that mere later-detected mischief by the exporter does not establish failure to advise if no contemporaneous knowledge of non-compliance existed. Interpretation and reasoning: The export documents were largely in order (no mismatch in quantity/quality; only a mismatch in vehicle number in supplier's e-way bill). There was no evidence that the broker had knowledge of intentional document manipulation or of any facts that would put him on notice to advise or report. Thus, the essential element of knowledge or notice required to trigger Regulation 10(d) was absent. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a broker cannot be held to have violated Regulation 10(d) absent material on record showing he acquired knowledge of non-compliance or deliberately withheld advice/notice to authorities. Conclusion: Allegation of breach of Regulation 10(d) not substantiated; revocation on this ground unsustainable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Violation of Regulation 10(m): Duty to discharge duties with speed and efficiency Legal framework: Regulation 10(m) requires a broker to discharge duties with utmost speed and efficiency without delay. Precedent treatment: Authorities recognize that to sustain a charge under 10(m), there must be evidence of actual delay or failure to perform duties efficiently. Interpretation and reasoning: No material on record showed any delay or lack of efficiency in discharge of duties by the appellant. The charge rested on alleged failure to cross-check details, but absence of delay or demonstrable inefficiency meant Regulation 10(m) was not breached. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - performance of duties must be shown to be inefficient or delayed to attract Regulation 10(m); mere suspicion about underlying transactions is insufficient. Conclusion: Allegation of breach of Regulation 10(m) not substantiated; revocation on this ground unsustainable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Violation of Regulation 10(n): Verification of IEC/GSTIN/client identity and address Legal framework: Regulation 10(n) requires verification of correctness of IEC, GSTIN and identity/functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents/data. Precedent treatment: Prior Tribunal and High Court decisions recognize that possession of government-issued documents (IEC, GSTIN, PAN, Aadhaar) and their authenticity constitute adequate compliance with Regulation 10(n) unless contrary evidence is available. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant was in possession of IEC, GSTIN, Aadhaar and PAN of the exporter; those documents were authentic and issued by government agencies. The exporter's existence was not in doubt. Non-existence or fictitious nature related to a supplier (M/s BhagwanJi Enterprise) and not to the exporter whose credentials the broker had verified. The Court held that such documents sufficed for compliance with 10(n). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - compliance with 10(n) is established by possession and verification of independent, authentic government-issued documents evidencing the client's identity and functioning. Conclusion: Allegation of breach of Regulation 10(n) not substantiated; revocation on this ground unsustainable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Violation of Regulation 10(q): Cooperation with authorities and joining investigation Legal framework: Regulation 10(q) requires a broker to cooperate with Customs Authorities and join investigation promptly. Precedent treatment: Authorities require proof of non-cooperation to sustain a charge under 10(q); inability to produce third parties is not imputed to the broker absent proof of control or responsibility for those third parties. Interpretation and reasoning: The adjudicating authority relied on the non-appearance of certain third persons and the non-production of an envelope said to contain KYC documents. The Tribunal observed the broker cannot be held responsible for non-appearance of third parties (employees/agents of others) and that the broker had otherwise cooperated with the investigation and offered assistance. No independent evidence established wilful non-cooperation by the broker. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absent clear evidence that a broker wilfully obstructed or refused to cooperate, Regulation 10(q) is not contravened by mere non-production or non-appearance of unrelated third persons. Conclusion: Allegation of breach of Regulation 10(q) not substantiated; revocation on this ground unsustainable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Liability of Customs Broker for exporter's overvaluation and reliance on precedent Legal framework: The CBLR imposes duties of due diligence and verification on brokers but does not render them insurers of all misconduct by exporters; liability hinges on breach of specified regulatory duties and knowledge or reasonable means of knowledge of exporter's misconduct. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Calcutta High Court and this Tribunal holding that brokers cannot be held liable for misconduct of exporters where brokers have performed requisite verifications and the documents relied upon were authentic and issued by governmental authorities. Interpretation and reasoning: The alleged overvaluation related to exporters' transactions and to a fictitious supplier (as per GST alert) used for fraudulent ITC claims. The broker submitted authentic documents furnished by the exporter; goods were found concordant with invoices in quantity and quality on 100% examination. There was no material showing the broker's involvement in valuation or that he had knowledge of suppliers' fictitious status at the relevant time. Precedents dealing with similar factual matrices were followed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a broker files export documents supplied by the exporter, verifies and possesses authentic government-issued documents, and has no indicia of the exporter's malfeasance, the broker cannot be penalized or have licence revoked for exporter's overvaluation; such principle is determinative here. Conclusion: Broker not liable for exporter's alleged overvaluation on the facts; reliance on binding precedent supports setting aside sanction. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RELIEF 1. The allegations of violations of Regulations 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) and 10(q) of the CBLR, 2018 were not substantiated on the record. 2. The impugned orders revoking the Customs Broker licence, forfeiting the pre-deposit and imposing penalty are unsustainable and were set aside. 3. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs as per law. (These conclusions constitute the operative ratio of the decision.)