TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
(1) Whether there was a violation of Regulation 1(4) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by sub-letting, renting or otherwise transferring the customs broker licence.
(2) Whether there was a violation of Regulation 10(a) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by filing shipping bills without obtaining proper authorisation from the exporter.
(3) Whether there was a violation of Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by failing to advise the client to comply with the law and report non-compliance.
(4) Whether there was a violation of Regulation 10(e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 concerning due diligence in imparting correct information to the client.
(5) Whether there was a violation of Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 regarding verification of the Importer Exporter Code, identity and functioning of the client at the declared address.
(6) Whether revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- were proportionate to the violations found.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (1): Violation of Regulation 1(4) - Sub-letting / transfer of licence
Legal framework
Regulation 1(4) CBLR, 2018 provides that every licence is deemed to have been granted or renewed in favour of the licensee and that no licence shall be sold or otherwise transferred.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal noted the undisputed facts that: (i) three shipping bills were filed in the name of an exporter which had never engaged the customs broker; (ii) the G-Card holder admitted that the shipping bills were filed at the behest of a third party for a fixed consideration per container; (iii) all export-related activities were handled by that third party, while the customs broker only lent its licence/credentials for filing documents; and (iv) the G-Card holder further stated that this was the regular mode of business and several persons used the licence for monetary consideration.
Repeated requests by the inquiry officer for agreements or declarations showing authorised use of the licence by others went unanswered, and no contrary evidence was produced by the customs broker. On these facts, the Tribunal held that the broker effectively sub-let or rented out its licence to third parties for gain.
Conclusions
The Tribunal held that the customs broker had violated Regulation 1(4) by sub-letting its licence to others for monetary gain, amounting to an impermissible transfer of the licence.
Issue (2): Violation of Regulation 10(a) - Authorisation from client
Legal framework
Regulation 10(a) requires a customs broker to obtain an authorisation from each client on whose behalf he acts, and to produce such authorisation when required by the customs authorities.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal emphasised that a customs broker acts as an agent of the exporter, and cannot act as such without being engaged and authorised by the exporter, both because the agent's acts bind the principal and because the agent expects remuneration from the principal.
It was undisputed that the broker: (i) had never contacted the named exporter; (ii) was not engaged by the exporter; (iii) filed the shipping bills solely at the behest of a third party for a fixed consideration; and (iv) produced no communication or agreement with the exporter when called upon by the inquiry officer. The alleged "authorisation" in the shipping bill file had been supplied by the third party, not by the exporter.
The Tribunal accepted that there is no legal bar to acquiring clients through intermediaries, but held that, before filing documents, the broker must obtain authorisation directly from the exporter. As the broker had not even contacted the exporter, the requirement of Regulation 10(a) was not met.
Conclusions
The Tribunal held that the broker had filed benami (pseudonymous) shipping bills at the behest of a third party, without authorisation from the named exporter, and thus violated Regulation 10(a).
Issue (3): Violation of Regulation 10(d) - Advising client and reporting non-compliance
Legal framework
Regulation 10(d) obliges a customs broker to advise his client to comply with the Customs Act, allied Acts and rules and, in case of non-compliance, to bring the matter to the notice of the proper officer.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal accepted that there was no evidence that the broker knew of the mis-declaration of prohibited goods or colluded in it, and hence could not have reported such non-compliance to customs. Accordingly, the second part of Regulation 10(d) (reporting non-compliance) was inapplicable on the facts.
However, the Tribunal focused on the first part of Regulation 10(d), namely the duty to advise the client to comply with the law. Since the broker was never engaged by the exporter and had not even contacted it, it was impossible for the broker to have discharged this advisory duty towards the named exporter.
Conclusions
The Tribunal held that, though there was no basis to allege failure to report known non-compliance, the broker nonetheless violated Regulation 10(d) by not being in a position to advise the exporter at all, as required by the regulation.
Issue (4): Violation of Regulation 10(e) - Due diligence in information imparted to client
Legal framework
Regulation 10(e) requires the customs broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client regarding clearance-related work.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the essence of Regulation 10(e) is due diligence in ensuring correctness of information imparted to the client. On the undisputed facts, the broker had never contacted the named exporter and therefore had not imparted any information or advice to it.
As no information was "imparted" to the exporter, there was no factual basis to hold that incorrect information was conveyed or that due diligence in this regard was lacking. The findings of the inquiry officer and Commissioner that the broker failed to exercise due diligence under Regulation 10(e) were therefore unsupported by the record.
Conclusions
The Tribunal held that the alleged violation of Regulation 10(e) was unsustainable and set aside the finding of contravention under this provision.
Issue (5): Violation of Regulation 10(n) - Verification of IEC, identity and functioning of client
Legal framework
Regulation 10(n) requires a customs broker to verify the correctness of the IEC, GSTIN, identity of the client, and the functioning of the client at the declared address, using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal identified that the core of Regulation 10(n) is not merely obtaining documents from any source, but independently verifying: (i) the identity of the client; and (ii) the client's functioning at the declared premises, based on reliable and independent material.
It was admitted that the broker: (i) was never engaged by the exporter; (ii) dealt only with a third party who supplied documents; and (iii) did not contact the exporter at all. When asked by the inquiry officer to produce KYC documents and evidence of verification, the broker failed to do so. The statement of the G-Card holder indicated handling of clearance work without KYC verification and without knowing the exporter.
On these facts, the Tribunal found that the broker could not be said to have verified the identity and functioning of the exporter in the manner mandated by Regulation 10(n), irrespective of any web-based checks allegedly done on the basis of documents supplied by the third party.
Conclusions
The Tribunal held that the broker had violated Regulation 10(n) by failing to independently verify the identity and functioning of the named exporter before filing the shipping bills.
Issue (6): Proportionality of revocation, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty
Legal framework
The Tribunal considered the sanction provisions under CBLR, 2018, particularly Regulations 14, 17 and 18, as well as judicial precedents upholding revocation where a license is sub-let or misused.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal recapitulated that the broker had: (i) violated Regulations 1(4), 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n); (ii) filed benami shipping bills in the name of an exporter who never engaged it; (iii) effectively allowed a third party to use its licence and credentials for consideration; and (iv) followed a business model where "several persons" used the licence in this manner.
The Tribunal stressed the critical role of customs brokers in safeguarding the nation's economic frontiers, ensuring proper collection of revenue and enforcement of prohibitions on imports and exports. If brokers are permitted to file benami shipping bills or bills of entry in the name of any IEC holder at the behest of third parties, controls over contraband, including drugs, explosives, arms and ammunition, would be seriously undermined and national security jeopardised.
Relying on the reasoning of higher courts which have treated sub-letting of customs broker licences as a serious violation justifying revocation, the Tribunal held that the gravity of the misconduct and the risk it poses to revenue and security warranted strict sanction.
Conclusions
The Tribunal concluded that revocation of the licence, forfeiture of the entire security deposit and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- were proportionate to the violations and their seriousness, found no infirmity in the impugned order, and dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
