Customs Broker compliance findings sustained; Tribunal's factual conclusions on alleged regulatory breach raised no substantial question of law.

No breach of Regulations 10(d) or 10(e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 was established where the Tribunal, as final fact-finder, held that the Revenue failed to prove that the Customs Broker did not advise compliance with law or participated in preventing proper examination of goods. The Tribunal also found no material showing advice for only partial examination, and the High Court held those factual findings were not shown to be perverse, contrary to record, or based on omission of material evidence. On that basis, the revocation of licence and forfeiture of the security deposit remained set aside, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs Broker had violated Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, and whether the Tribunal's factual findings setting aside revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, examined the record and concluded that the Revenue failed to establish breach of Regulation 10(d) or Regulation 10(e). It found no evidence that the Customs Broker had failed to advise the client to comply with the law or had participated in preventing proper examination of the goods, and also found no material showing that the importer had been advised by the Customs Broker to offer only partial examination. The High Court noted that the Revenue did not demonstrate that these factual findings were perverse, contrary to record, or based on omission of material evidence. In that situation, the Tribunal's factual conclusions could not be faulted.

Conclusion: No violation of Regulations 10(d) or 10(e) was established, and the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law.

---