2021 (2) TMI 1021 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - corroborative evidences or not - no fresh evidence was brought by the Revenue before the Inquiry Officer as well as before the Commissioner to prove that the appellant had information, knowledge or have connived in the overvaluation of the goods or misdeclaration etc. - violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(n) and 13(7) of CBLR - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the present case, the Department has failed to bring any corroborative evidence or statement of anybody on record to prove that the appellant had information, knowledge or have connived in the overvaluation of the goods or mis-declaration etc. It is also noted that the law is well settled that an element of mens-rea or direct or indirect involvement attributable to the appellant through active knowledge or connivance is required to prove in a proceedings under CBLR, 2018. We noted a series of judgments in our order dt. 14/07/2020 but both the authorities have not considered the same at all. Both the authorities have not even distinguished the authorities relied upon by the appellant and have been noted in the order dt. 14/07/2020. The learned Commissioner was bent upon revoking the licence of the appellant in spite of the fact that the appellant were not responsible for violating the regulations as alleged against them - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of customs broker license under CBLR 2018, forfeiture of security deposit, imposition of penalty, alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(n), and 13(7) of CBLR, denial of renewal of license, suspension of license, inquiry process, consideration of evidence, mens rea requirement in proceedings under CBLR.

Revocation of License, Forfeiture of Deposit, and Penalty:
The appeal challenged the impugned order revoking the appellant's customs broker license under Regulation 17 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2018 (CBLR) and forfeiting the security deposit, along with imposing a penalty of ?50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR. The Commissioner of Customs based the revocation on alleged violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(n), and 13(7) of CBLR in relation to exports facilitated by the appellant. The Tribunal noted the lack of corroborative evidence or mens rea linking the appellant to the alleged violations. The Tribunal found the revocation unsustainable, set it aside, and directed the appellant to reapply for the license.

Denial of Renewal and Suspension of License:
The Commissioner initially denied the renewal of the appellant's license based on alleged violations before the completion of the inquiry process. The Tribunal, in a previous order, had set aside the denial of renewal, emphasizing that renewal should not be denied during pending inquiries without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found the denial of renewal and continued suspension of the license unjustified, as the Department failed to establish the appellant's direct or indirect involvement in the alleged violations.

Inquiry Process and Evidence Consideration:
The inquiry was conducted by an appointed Inquiry Officer under Rule 17 of CBLR 2018, following due process. Despite the Inquiry Officer upholding the violations, the Tribunal found the lack of new evidence or statements proving the appellant's complicity in the alleged misdeeds. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement of mens rea or active involvement attributable to the appellant, which was not substantiated by the Department's evidence. The Tribunal criticized both authorities for disregarding relevant judgments and not differentiating the appellant's case from previous decisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability, as it persisted with revoking the license without sufficient evidence of the appellant's involvement in the alleged violations. The Tribunal set aside the order, directing the appellant to reapply for the license, and instructed the Commissioner to decide on the renewal afresh in compliance with the law. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing mens rea and active involvement in proceedings under CBLR 2018, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to support allegations of misconduct.

---