Customs broker compliance lapse: licence revocation and security forfeiture set aside, but penalty upheld for regulatory non-compliance.

In customs broker licensing matters, a lapse concerning proof of a duly qualified and approved person was treated as a documentation and regulatory compliance issue rather than a deliberate or substantive breach. The record indicated that the appellant's partner and G-card holder handled documents, and there was no allegation of misdeclaration, fraud, or revenue loss. As the department relied mainly on the absence of a departmental record and did not positively disprove the explanation that intimation had been sent, revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were found excessive and set aside, while the penalty was upheld as justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged failure to have a duly qualified and approved person under the customs broker licensing regime justified revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit, and whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the appellant had, in substance, complied with the requirement of having a qualified person and whether the absence of departmental acknowledgment of intimation could by itself establish non-compliance. The records showed that the appellant's partner and G-card holder handled documents, but there was no allegation of misdeclaration, fraud, or revenue loss. The department relied mainly on absence of documentary trace in its records, whereas the explanation that intimation had been sent was not positively disproved. The alleged lapse was treated as one of documentation and regulatory compliance rather than a deliberate or substantive breach. In these circumstances, revocation and forfeiture were found to be excessive, though the lapse still warranted penalty.

Conclusion: The revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit were unsustainable and were set aside, but the penalty was upheld as justified.

---