Authorization requirement for agents and customs broker obligations: broker filed benami shipping bills; licence revoked and penalty imposed

Time-limit under Regulation 17(7) did not bar the disciplinary order because the Supreme Court's COVID extension covered the inquiry and order dates, so the 90-day limitation was inapplicable and the order is valid. The broker violated Regulation 10(a) and 10(d) by filing benami shipping bills at the behest of a third party without authorization or contact with the IEC holders; outcome: violations upheld. The broker breached Regulation 10(n) by failing to verify IEC, PAN and GSTIN; outcome: violation upheld. The broker did not breach Regulation 10(e). Result: licence revoked, security forfeited and Rs.50,000 penalty; appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order was passed beyond the time limit of 90 days under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018; (ii) Whether the appellant violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018; (iii) Whether revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- are proportionate to the violations.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was passed beyond the time limit of 90 days under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: The inquiry report was submitted on 26.02.2020 and the impugned order was passed on 26.06.2020. The Supreme Court had extended statutory and prescribed time-limits during the COVID pandemic for the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Both the inquiry report and the impugned order fall within the pandemic-affected period, and the statutory extension applies to computation of the 90-day period under Regulation 17(7).

Conclusion: Not beyond the time limit; in favour of Respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: Regulation 10(a) requires obtaining and producing authorisation from exporters before filing shipping bills. Regulation 10(d) requires advising clients to comply with applicable law and reporting non-compliance. Regulation 10(e) requires exercising due diligence regarding information imparted. Regulation 10(n) requires verification of IEC, GSTIN, identity and functioning of the client using reliable independent documents or data. Evidence shows shipping bills were filed in the names and IECs of purported exporters without contacting or obtaining authorisations from them; dealings were routed through an intermediary and the alleged exporters denied association, indicating benami filings. There is no evidence that incorrect information was imparted by the broker to clients, and records do not show the broker provided false information to clients.

Conclusion: Regulation 10(a) violated; Regulation 10(d) violated; Regulation 10(e) not violated; Regulation 10(n) violated; overall in favour of Respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- are proportionate to the violations.

Analysis: The violations involved filing benami shipping bills without authorisation or contact with IEC holders, posing significant risk of misuse of import/export channels. Given seriousness of filing documents in another's name and potential for facilitating fraudulent exports, the imposed sanctions are assessed for proportionality against the gravity and consequences of the misconduct.

Conclusion: Penalties upheld as proportionate; in favour of Respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order revoking the customs broker licence, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is upheld, reflecting that the statutory time-limit defence fails, specified regulatory violations are established (except for Regulation 10(e)), and the sanctions are proportionate.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs broker must obtain express authorisation from the exporter/importer and verify IEC/GSTIN/PAN and client existence by reliable independent means before filing shipping bills; filing shipping bills in another's name without authorisation (benami filing) constitutes breach of Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) and can justify licence revocation, forfeiture and monetary penalty.

---