2025 (11) TMI 1221 - AT - Customs

Customs broker's licence suspension set aside; due diligence under CHLR 2018 met without physical verification or deep background checks

CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal of the customs broker and set aside the suspension/revocation of its licence. The Tribunal held that, under CHLR ... Suspension of Customs broker License - fraudulent availment of excess Rebate - case of Revenue is that the Customs Broker Appellant was responsible for the alleged excess availment by the unscrupulous exporters as he failed to verify the antecedents and exact whereabouts of the exporters and has not shown due diligence in the discharge of his responsibilities as a Customs Broker - HELD THAT:- It is found that it has been held in a number of cases that the Customs Broker need not visit the premises of the exporters and would not have any capability to do a background check of the exporters. What the Customs Broker could do in terms of the CHLR 2018 is to verify on the basis of the documents provided by the exporter. It is not the case of the Department that the documents submitted by the appellants are forged or fake. Under the circumstances, it has to be presumed that the Customs Broker Appellant has verified the whereabouts of the exporters by reasonable means like the examination of the documents like IEC and PAN Card etc. of the exporters. Therefore, Customs Broker Appellant cannot be alleged to have established the bona fides of the exporters which is clearly beyond his mandate. In the instant case, it is found that the exporters have filed the necessary shipping bills through the Customs Broker Appellant and presented the goods for the examination by the customs officers, who have given Let Export Order. After satisfying about the exports, RoSL was released in the system and credited to the Bank accounts of the exporters. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashiana Cargo Services [2014 (3) TMI 562 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that even though it is seen that the Customs Broker has violated the trust operating between the customs authorities and the CHA, it has to be borne in mind that the CHA was unable to work with the license for 07 to 08 years; a penalty must be imposed if certain provisions have been violated; the penalty must, as in any ordered system, be proportional to the violation just as the law abhors impunity for infractions, it cautions against disproportionate penalty; neither extreme is to be encouraged. Hon’ble High Court held that a penalty of revocation of license unjustly restricts the appellant’s ability to engage the business of CHA for a long time; importantly, it skews the proportionality doctrine - it is also found that, in the instant case, the Customs Broker Appellant has been singled out without establishing the role of other persons or agencies without evidencing any collusion etc., without which violation of such proportion would not have been possible. No mens rea has been established. Thus, looking into the relevant factors like knowledge/ mens rea, gravity of the infraction, stringency of the penalty/ suspension/ revocation and that the appellant has already suffered for 07 to 08 years, a judicious mind will not but lean in favour of the Customs Broker Appellant. Though, the Authorized Representative submits that the appellant has been a habitual offender, it has to be borne in mind that this Bench has set aside the suspension of the Customs Broker Appellant on two occasions - In the instant case also, in view of the absence of evidence of any mens rea on the part of the appellant or collusion with others, it is opined that the impugned order cannot be maintained and requires to be set aside without blinking an eye. The appeal is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the suspension of the Customs Broker's license under Regulation 16(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) was justified on the basis of alleged excess RoSL availment by exporters for whom the broker filed shipping bills. 2. The scope and extent of the duties and obligations of a Customs Broker/CHA under Regulation 10 and related provisions of CBLR, 2018 - in particular, whether a broker is required to undertake background checks, KYC beyond documentary verification, or to establish the bona fides and existence of exporters beyond examination of documents presented. 3. Whether the embargo/prohibition order issued by a different customs office and the existence of earlier suspensions/revocations affect the validity or propriety of a fresh suspension imposed by the licensing authority in 2024. 4. Whether principles of natural justice were complied with in the suspension proceedings (adequacy of notice, opportunity of personal hearing, and sufficiency of particulars provided). 5. The evidentiary standard required to impose preventive disciplinary sanctions (suspension/revocation) - role of mens rea, collusion, and specific evidence connecting the Customs Broker to fraudulent excess RoSL claims - and the application of proportionality in imposing long-term deprivation of livelihood. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Justification for suspension under Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018 Legal framework: Regulation 16(1) empowers the licensing authority to suspend a Customs Broker license where circumstances justify preventive action. Regulation 15 permits prohibition of working by another customs authority. Discipline may follow if obligations under CBLR are contravened. Precedent treatment: The Court considered prior decisions which establish that brokers occupy a position of trust and may attract consequences for contraventions; however, earlier orders in the appellant's own matter setting aside suspensions were recorded by this Bench. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether the specific facts (excess RoSL claimed by exporters, returned summons/letters, exporters absent at declared addresses, funds withdrawn) sufficed to fix primary responsibility on the broker. It found that shipping bills were filed and Let Export Order was granted by customs officers after examination of goods; RoSL was released and credited to exporters' bank accounts. There was no affirmative finding that the documents submitted by the broker were forged or that the broker failed to verify documents he was entitled to rely on. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - suspension under Regulation 16(1) cannot be maintained where the disciplinary measure is not supported by specific evidence tying the broker's conduct to the fraud and where the broker performed functions within his mandate. Obiter - observations about scrutiny of other agencies (customs officers, banks) and their potential culpability. Conclusions: The impugned suspension under Regulation 16(1) was not justified on the evidence before the Tribunal and must be set aside. Issue 2 - Scope of Customs Broker obligations (KYC, due diligence, verification) Legal framework: Regulation 10 (and related CHALR/CBLR standards) prescribes duties such as advising exporters to comply with law, exercising due diligence, bringing non-compliance to authorities' notice, and verifying identity particulars (IEC, GSTIN, PAN, address) as appropriate. Precedent treatment: The Court referenced authorities holding that a broker's duty is limited to verification based on documents provided and that brokers are not obliged to conduct extensive background checks or physical verification beyond documentary checks; such precedents were relied upon by the appellant. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that the Customs Broker can be expected to verify authenticity on available documents (IEC, PAN, etc.) but is not mandated, nor practically positioned, to perform comprehensive background investigations (e.g., visiting premises) or to guarantee exporter bona fides. There was no finding of forged documents or that the broker presented false documents. Where customs officers examined goods and issued Let Export Orders, responsibility for release and RoSL accrual also implicates those authorities and other actors. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a Customs Broker's obligations under CBLR/CHLR do not extend to instituting full background investigations beyond documentary verification; absence of forged documents or demonstrable failure in document verification negates basis for suspension. Obiter - commentary that other agencies' actions may require scrutiny when revenue loss occurs. Conclusions: The broker cannot be held liable merely because exporters turned out to be fraudulent where documentary verification was not shown to be deficient or forged; duties are limited to reasonable documentary checks and advising compliance. Issue 3 - Effect of prior suspensions/revocations and redundancy of fresh suspension Legal framework: Licensing authority actions must be lawful, proportionate, and not punitive beyond what is warranted; prior adjudications and earlier setting aside of suspensions by the Tribunal are relevant. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on its own earlier orders setting aside previous suspensions and invoked principles from a High Court decision emphasizing proportionality and avoiding disproportionate deprivation of livelihood. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the broker's license had been under suspension/revocation since 2018 and that two prior suspensions/revocations were set aside by this Bench. Imposing a further suspension in such circumstances was redundant and suggested vengeance, particularly as the appellant had been out of work for 7-8 years. The long-term cumulative effect on livelihood and the absence of fresh, specific evidence tying the broker to misconduct weighed against re-imposing suspension. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a license is already under suspension and earlier adverse orders have been set aside, a further suspension based on the same or insufficiently specific allegations may be redundant and disproportionate. Obiter - strong language regarding potential vindictiveness of repeated suspensions. Conclusions: The fresh suspension could not be sustained given prior history, absence of new cogent evidence, and the disproportionate impact on the broker's livelihood; the impugned order is to be set aside. Issue 4 - Compliance with principles of natural justice (notice and hearing) Legal framework: Disciplinary/revocation proceedings require adequate notice of allegations and an opportunity for personal/heard submissions; Regulation 16 procedure contemplates show-cause, hearings, and written submissions. Precedent treatment: The Revenue asserted multiple hearings were afforded; the appellant claimed prior suspension obviated fresh action and complained of insufficiency. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that multiple hearing opportunities were in fact provided (dates recited) and written submissions were filed. However, the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion rested not on procedural infirmity but on the insufficiency of substantive evidence and proportionality considerations. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - while procedural opportunities were adequate in this instance, adequacy of natural justice alone does not validate a punitive measure unsupported by evidence. Ratio - substantive insufficiency and disproportionality can render an otherwise procedurally regular suspension unsustainable. Conclusions: Natural justice requirements were met procedurally, but compliance with those requirements did not cure the substantive defects in the order; hence the suspension is not sustainable on merits. Issue 5 - Mens rea, collusion, evidentiary standard and proportionality of preventive sanctions Legal framework: Preventive disciplinary action under CBLR must be supported by evidence of violation; where severe sanctions impinge on livelihood, the proportionality doctrine and requirement for specific evidence (mens rea/collusion where alleged) apply. Precedent treatment: The Court cited authority that brokers hold a position of trust and may attract consequences absent intent, but balanced that against authorities emphasizing proportionality and that revocation/suspension should fit gravity of violation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found no specific evidence of mens rea or collusion by the broker. The absence of forged documents and the fact that customs officers examined goods and issued Let Export Orders undermined a finding that the broker was the proximate cause of the revenue loss. Given the serious and long-standing deprivation of the broker's livelihood (7-8 years) and absence of specific culpatory evidence, a proportionality analysis favored remediation other than continued suspension. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - in absence of specific evidence of mens rea or collusion, and where sanction is disproportionate to proven misconduct, suspension/revocation cannot be sustained. Obiter - suggestion that penalties rather than revocation may be appropriate where violations are proven but culpability is limited. Conclusions: The evidentiary threshold for sustaining a preventive and livelihood-denying sanction was not met; proportionality principles and lack of mens rea require setting aside the suspension. Final Disposition The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned suspension order on grounds of insufficient specific evidence tying the Customs Broker to the fraudulent excess RoSL claim, limitation of broker duties to documentary verification, redundancy and disproportionality given prior suspended status, and absence of mens rea or collusion. The decision to suspend was therefore not maintainable.