TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gulations, 2018 (hereinafter "CBLR 2018"). The operative portion of the Order-in-Original dated 23rd February, 2024 is extracted herein below: "ORDER In exercise of powers conferred in terms of Regulation 14 & 18 read with Regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018, (i) I hereby revoke the CB Licence No. R-81/DEL/CUS/2006 of M/s Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd (PAN: AACCJ5444N); (ii) I direct the CB to immediately surrender the Original CB License No. R-81/DEL/CUS/2006 along with all 'F/G/H' Cards in original issued there under; (iii) I order for forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit furnished by them under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018; (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd. (PAN: AACCJ5444N) under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018." 4. The said Order-in-Original has been set aside by CESTAT vide the impugned order. In effect, therefore, the revocation of the license of the Respondent has been set aside. 5. The allegation against the Respondent was that one M/s Tanu Trading vide Bills of Entry No. 3673416 dated 09th December, 2022 had imported certain cosmetic items with the int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the above, we hold that the revocation of CB license by the Customs authorities is not sustainable, and impugned order is set aside with consequential benefit, if any. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed." 9. On the basis of these findings, the CESTAT held in favour of the Respondent. 10. The submission of ld. SSC for the Department is that the Customs Broker has a duty and obligation to ensure that there is no violation of the CBLR 2018. Further, the various statements which were recorded during the investigation by the Department revealed the complicity of the Respondent. The role played by the Respondent was more active and the it had failed to oversee clearance of the goods from Customs which led to the illegal divergence. Proper authorisation was also not obtained from the importer by the Respondent as per the Appellant. Ld. counsel for the Respondent submits that there is no substantial question of law that arises. Further, 11. The Court has considered the matter. After the issuance of the SCN, the Respondent's licence was suspended at all Customs Stations/ Ports of India with immediate effect vide order dated 16th June 2023. This fact is recorded in para no.5 of the Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24/2012 titled M/S. Ashiana Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (I&G), this Court discussed the proportionality of punishment imposed on Custom House Agents in an appeal where the CESTAT upheld the revocation of the license of the Appellant under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. While deciding the said appeal, the Court held as under: "8. The issue before the Court is the proportionality of the penalty awarded in this case. The CHA Regulations prescribe two penalties: suspension of the license for a particular period of time, and revocation of the license, such that it irretrievably loses its currency. Once the Commissioner reaches a decision, the CESTAT, and this Court, would not ordinarily interfere with the award of punishment, denuding the disciplinary power of the designated authority. That said, the course of action taken by the Commissioner of Customs must depend on the gravity and nature of the infraction by the CHA, and thus, the punishment must be proportional to the violation. Given the civil consequences of revocation for the CHA, read in the background of its freedom under Article 19(1)(g), this principle of law is undisputed. Casting some c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner and the CESTAT that the appellant did not have knowledge that the illegal exports were effected using the G cards given to VK's employees. There was no active or passive facilitation by the appellant in that sense. Undoubtedly, the provision of the G cards to nonemployees itself violated the CHA Regulations. This is an admitted fact, but it is not the Revenue's argument (nor is it the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner or the CESTAT) that this violation in itself is sufficiently grave so as to justify the extreme measure of revocation. Not any and every infraction of the CHA Regulations, either under Regulation 13 ("Obligations of CHA") or elsewhere, leads to the revocation of license; rather, in line with a proportionality analysis, only grave and serious violations justify revocation. In other cases, suspension for an adequate period of time (resulting in loss of business and income) suffices, both as a punishment for the infraction and as a deterrent to future violations. For the punishment to be proportional to the violation, revocation of the license under Rule 20(1) can only be justified in the presence of aggravating factors that allow the infraction to be....