2020 (11) TMI 1044 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - it is alleged that customs broker had filed the said documents without identifying the importer on record - consignments imported were, upon examination, found to contain imitation raw material glass beads weighing 28,490 kgs. and crystal bowl valued at ₹ 81,000 without corresponding declarations - proper opportunity of being heard not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The plea of the customs broker to the effect that the importer on record, having appeared before the investigating authorities, could not be non-existent is tenable. There are merits in the contention that, with the existence of the importer thus being without doubt, the obligation devolving on the broker could not be alleged to have been breached in substance. The objective of the said obligation could only be established the antecedents of the said persons. Had the customs broker carried out necessary checks as warranted by the Regulations, the facts would not alter in any manner and nor would the importability of goods. The non-consideration of the first aspect and the insinuation of the second do not advance the propriety of detriment visited upon the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs. This is more so, as the inquiry was conducted ex parte even if that be the fault of the appellant. We cannot also but take note that the intimation letters sent by inquiry authority are dated 23rd October, 2017, 1st November, 2017 and 7th November, 2017 with just a week elapsing between the said communications and the dates, scheduled for hearing, not separated by even the same lapse of time. The notice for adjournments were, therefore, not appropriately phased as to facilitate a proper hearing but merely for technical compliance. The process initiated cannot be brought to a conclusion in favour of the appellant without proper evidence being placed - matter remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs for conduct of a fresh inquiry and for arriving at conclusion thereto without being influenced by extraneous facts and circumstances - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of customs broker license under Regulation No. 20(7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 due to non-compliance with obligations under Regulation 11(a) and 11(n).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allegations of Non-Compliance with Regulations
The judgment revolves around the revocation of a customs broker's license for alleged non-compliance with obligations under Regulations 11(a) and 11(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The appellant faced charges related to the submission of documents without identifying the importer on record, leading to the initiation of proceedings under the said regulations.

Issue 2: Procedural Irregularities and Natural Justice
The judgment highlights procedural irregularities in the inquiry process, where the inquiry authority afforded adjournments but the appellant did not avail them, resulting in ex parte proceedings. The tribunal observed that the appellant's plea regarding the existence of the importer on record was valid, emphasizing that the broker's obligations could not be deemed breached if the importer was identifiable. The failure to consider this crucial aspect and the conduct of ex parte proceedings were deemed violations of natural justice principles.

Issue 3: Lack of Evidence and Fresh Inquiry
The tribunal noted that the inquiry did not consider significant facts, such as the involvement of the importer and past cases involving the customs broker. Due to procedural lapses and the absence of proper evidence, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs for a fresh inquiry. The directive emphasized the necessity of conducting a new inquiry in adherence to principles of natural justice to reach a fair conclusion.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal obligations in matters concerning the revocation of licenses. It emphasizes the need for thorough inquiries, consideration of all relevant evidence, and compliance with principles of natural justice to ensure a just and unbiased decision-making process in regulatory proceedings.