Customs broker penalties under Sections 114(iii), 114AA quashed; lapses under CBLR 2018, Regulation 10 not abetment

CESTAT allowed the appeal of the customs broker, setting aside penalties imposed under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the findings in the impugned order pertained solely to alleged lapses under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, with no recorded contravention of the Customs Act or any act of abetment leading to confiscation under Section 113. It was further held that mere failure to diligently perform obligations under Regulation 10, including non-physical verification of exporters' premises, did not amount to aiding, abetting or filing false documents. As the Regulations form a complete code for such lapses, separate Customs Act penalties were unsustainable.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(1) Whether penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against the appellants solely on the basis of alleged violation of obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, without a specific finding of contravention or abetment of contravention of the Customs Act leading to confiscation under Section 113.

(2) Whether the appellants' alleged failure to physically verify the exporter's premises, despite carrying out KYC on the basis of government-issued documents and online verification, constituted "abetment" of the attempted improper export so as to attract penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3) Whether the statutory ingredients of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were established against the appellants, justifying penalty for use or causing use of false or incorrect declarations/documents in the export transaction.

(4) Whether, in light of the applicable legal position on Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (particularly Regulation 10(n)), the appellants could be said to have failed in their KYC obligations so as to justify penal action under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2 - Penalty under Section 114(iii) based on alleged breach of CBLR obligations and non-physical verification; existence of "abetment"

Legal framework as discussed

(a) Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 (reproduced in the order) provides that any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abets such act/omission, shall be liable to penalty; in the case of "other goods", penalty under clause (iii) may extend to the greater of the declared value or the value determined under the Act.

(b) The Tribunal referred extensively to Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, particularly Regulation 10(n), which obliges a Customs Broker to "verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information".

(c) The impugned order itself acknowledged that, for the alleged lapses, the appellants were liable for action under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (paras 6.8.15 and 6.9.7).

(d) The Tribunal relied, inter alia, on its earlier decisions (quoted in detail) holding that:

- Verification under Regulation 10(n) is satisfied when IEC and GSTIN, issued by government authorities, are verified through reliable, independent and authentic documents/data (including online verification), and the Customs Broker is not required to investigate correctness of issuance by such authorities.

- Regulation 10(n) does not mandate physical verification or continuous surveillance of the client's premises; responsibility can be discharged through documentary and data-based verification.

- A Customs Broker is not an "inspector" of the genuineness of government-issued registrations and cannot be expected to verify beyond such documents unless there is knowledge of fraud.

(e) The Tribunal also referred to precedent clarifying that "abetment" requires intentional aid and active complicity, and that mere negligence or dereliction of duty, without evidence of knowledge or benefit, does not constitute abetment attracting penalty under Section 114.

Interpretation and reasoning

(i) The Tribunal noted that the entire reasoning in the impugned order against the appellants was premised on their alleged failure to perform obligations under Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, mainly for not physically verifying the business premises and antecedents of the exporter.

(ii) It observed that the impugned order did not record even "an iota of finding" that the appellants had contravened any specific provision of the Customs Act, 1962, or that they had committed or abetted any act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113.

(iii) The Tribunal held that, under Section 114(iii), penalty is attracted only where there is:

- a finding that the person committed an act or omission which would render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113; or

- a finding that such person knowingly abetted such act/omission.

In the absence of such findings, mere failure to comply with regulatory obligations under CBLR, 2018 cannot, by itself, justify penalty under Section 114(iii).

(iv) It emphasized that the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 are a "complete code" for dealing with failures in discharging obligations prescribed thereunder, including separate consequences under those Regulations. The impugned order itself recognized the appellants' liability for action under those Regulations; therefore, the same alleged lapse could not automatically be treated as a contravention or abetment under the Customs Act without an explicit and substantiated finding.

(v) On the allegation of non-verification of premises and antecedents, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' contention that:

- They verified IEC, GSTIN and identity documents issued by government authorities and cross-checked these through independent sources (websites of concerned departments).

- Law does not mandate physical verification of the business premises of every client, and Regulation 10(n) allows verification by "reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information" without prescribing physical visits.

(vi) Relying on detailed extracts from its earlier decisions and a High Court judgment, the Tribunal reiterated that:

- Once IEC and GSTIN are verified as validly issued by competent authorities, the Customs Broker's obligation under Regulation 10(n) stands fulfilled; the Broker is not required to investigate whether those authorities correctly issued such registrations.

- The obligation to verify identity and functioning of the client can be discharged by relying on independent, reliable, authentic documents or data (such as government-issued documents and their online verification); physical verification is not mandated by the Regulation.

- The subsequent discovery by Customs that the exporter was non-existent at the declared address, or that the landlord denied rental, cannot retrospectively convert the Broker's documentary verification into a regulatory failure amounting to abetment, absent evidence that the Broker knew or should have known of fraud at the time of accepting the client.

(vii) On the allegation of "collusion" and "abetment", the Tribunal noted:

- The impugned order concluded that the appellants "aided and abetted" attempted export of mis-declared and overvalued goods essentially because they failed to physically verify the exporter's premises.

- However, there was no evidence of intentional aid, active complicity, or any benefit to the appellants from the alleged fraud.

- Precedent establishes that abetment requires intentional assistance and positive nexus with the wrongful act; mere negligence or dereliction of duty, even if assumed, does not amount to abetment under Section 114.

- The record lacked any statement or material showing that the appellants connived with the exporter or had prior knowledge of mis-declaration or overvaluation.

(viii) Applying the above principles, the Tribunal held that even if, arguendo, the appellants had not exercised the highest diligence expected under CBLR, 2018, such lapse would at most invite action under those Regulations and could not be stretched to constitute "abetment" of an attempt to export improperly under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act.

Conclusions on Issues 1 & 2

(a) Penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained when the only established allegation against the appellants is failure to fulfil duties under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, without any specific and supported finding of contravention or abetment of contravention of provisions of the Customs Act leading to confiscation under Section 113.

(b) The appellants' verification of IEC, GSTIN and identity documents through government-issued documents and online checks satisfied the obligation under Regulation 10(n); physical verification of the exporter's premises is not mandated by that Regulation.

(c) Mere alleged non-physical verification and asserted lack of "due diligence", in the absence of evidence of intentional aid, active complicity, or knowledge of fraud, do not constitute "abetment" for purposes of Section 114(iii).

(d) Accordingly, the imposition of penalties on the appellants under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to be legally unsustainable.

Issue 3 - Applicability of Section 114AA (use of false or incorrect material)

Legal framework as discussed

(a) Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 (reproduced in the order) provides that a person who "knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act" shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods.

(b) The Tribunal referred to its prior decisions clarifying that penalty under provisions analogous to Section 114AA requires proof of prior knowledge, deliberate intent (mala fides), and intentional furnishing or use of false/incorrect declarations or documents, and cannot be imposed merely for failures in discharging regulatory duties absent such knowledge or intent.

Interpretation and reasoning

(i) The Tribunal examined the impugned order and found no specific finding that the appellants themselves made, signed or used, or caused to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which was false or incorrect in any material particular for the purposes of the Customs Act.

(ii) The findings against the appellants were confined to the assertion that they:

- did not properly verify the exporter's premises/antecedents; and

- did not discharge obligations under Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 with due diligence.

(iii) The Tribunal held that even if such findings of inadequate diligence were accepted at face value, they do not satisfy the statutory requirement of Section 114AA, namely:

- knowing or intentional making/using/causing to be made/used a false or incorrect declaration, statement or document in any material particular; and

- such act being in the course of a business transaction under the Customs Act.

(iv) The Tribunal also noted the absence of any material showing that the KYC documents (IEC, GSTIN, identity documents, rent agreement, electricity bill, etc.), which the appellants relied upon, were fake or forged or known by them to be false at the relevant time. Nor was there evidence that the appellants deliberately caused false particulars to be incorporated in the export documentation.

(v) Relying on its earlier rulings, the Tribunal reiterated that:

- Section 114AA penalizes intentional use of false or incorrect documents; mere failure to be fully aware of all regulatory requirements or mere negligence in verification, without proof of deliberate participation in wrongdoing, does not attract this provision.

- In the absence of cogent evidence of prior knowledge, deliberate intent or conscious involvement in the exporter's wrongful acts, imposition of penalty under Section 114AA is unwarranted.

Conclusions on Issue 3

(a) The record did not establish that the appellants knowingly or intentionally made, signed or used, or caused to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which was false or incorrect in any material particular for the purposes of the Customs Act.

(b) The allegations and findings were limited to alleged lapses in performing KYC and obligations under Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, which do not, by themselves, meet the threshold of Section 114AA.

(c) Consequently, invocation of Section 114AA and imposition of penalties thereunder against the appellants were held to be bad in law and unsustainable.

Issue 4 - Scope of obligations under Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 and its impact on penal liability under the Customs Act

Legal framework as discussed

(a) Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 mandates verification of IEC, GSTIN, identity of client and functioning at the declared address "by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information".

(b) The Tribunal relied on its own prior interpretations of Regulation 10(n) and allied provisions, holding that:

- Verification obligations can be fulfilled through documentary and data-based means (e.g., government-issued documents, online verification), without mandatory physical visits.

- A Customs Broker is not required to "spy" or continuously monitor the client's premises; the obligation does not extend to verifying correctness of decisions and actions of government authorities issuing IEC and GSTIN.

Interpretation and reasoning

(i) The Tribunal accepted that the appellants possessed and relied upon IEC, GSTIN, PAN/Aadhaar/Voter ID and rent/electricity documents, and that these were independently verifiable through government portals and other sources.

(ii) It held that:

- Verification of IEC and GSTIN as actually issued by competent authorities, and correlation of address and identity through such government documents, meets the standard of "reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information" contemplated in Regulation 10(n).

- There is no requirement in Regulation 10(n) that the Customs Broker must personally or physically visit each client's premises, and such a reading would unduly broaden the regulatory burden beyond the text.

(iii) The Tribunal further noted that the later discovery by Customs that the exporter was not functioning at the declared address, or that a different person claimed ownership of the premises, does not ipso facto show non-compliance with Regulation 10(n) at the time of KYC where the Broker had relied on facially valid, government-backed documents.

(iv) It was also observed that, even assuming some deficiency in diligence under CBLR, 2018, the proper consequence would be action under those Regulations, and not automatic penal liability under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act in the absence of separate proof of statutory contravention or abetment under the Act.

Conclusions on Issue 4

(a) Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 does not mandate physical verification of the client's premises; verification obligations can be discharged by relying on reliable, independent and authentic documents and data, including government-issued registrations and their online verification.

(b) The appellants' reliance on IEC, GSTIN and other government-issued KYC documents, in the absence of proof that such documents were fake or known to be false, satisfied the verification requirement under Regulation 10(n).

(c) Even if any lapse under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 were assumed, it would, at most, warrant proceedings under those Regulations and could not, by itself, sustain penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act without independent establishment of the statutory ingredients of those penal provisions.

Overall Outcome

The Tribunal held that the statutory ingredients of Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were not established against the appellants; penalties imposed under these provisions were therefore legally unsustainable and were set aside, with the appeals allowed.

---