2021 (9) TMI 409 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty on Customs Broker License - penalty under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2018 - failure to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018 - allegation is that appellant has not acted with due diligence and in turn, has violated Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - The role and responsibilities of the Customs Broker are limited, more so when the IE code has already been issued by the concerned authority and hence, the Customs Broker cannot be found fault with - the Inquiry Officer has, after going through the relevant documents, concluded that the appellant had no role to justify invoking irregularity under the provisions of the CBLR, 2018. The penalty is imposed without any justifiable reasons by the Commissioner - the appeal is allowed and the penalty levied is deleted.

Summary

Issues: Alleged contravention of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 leading to proposed revocation of license, forfeiture of security, and penalty imposition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Contravention of Regulations:
The appellant, a Customs Broker, faced a Show Cause Notice alleging contravention of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) and proposing revocation of the license, forfeiture of security, and penalty imposition. The Inquiry Officer found that the appellant had obtained all relevant documents from the importer, and there was no collusion in a smuggling attempt. The only lapse identified was the non-physical verification of the importer's address, which was explained as unintentional due to the availability of the address in KYC documents. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the Customs Broker were not sustainable.

2. Adjudication by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner adjudicated the matter and imposed a penalty on the appellant for allegedly violating Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. However, during the appeal, the appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified, citing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding the obligations of Customs House Agents under similar regulations. The appellant emphasized that the role and responsibilities of a Customs Broker are limited, especially when the Importer-Exporter (IE) code has been issued by the relevant authority, absolving the Broker of fault.

3. Legal Interpretation and Conclusion:
The appellant's legal representative relied on the High Court decision to argue that the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for discrepancies in documents if they were innocently filed based on information provided by the client. The representative highlighted that the due diligence obligation of the Broker pertains to information imparted to the client and not conducting background checks on the client or consignment. The judgment emphasized that the grant of an IE code presupposes verification by customs authorities, and any misdeclaration should be attributed to the client, not the Broker. The judgment concluded that the penalty imposed lacked justifiable reasons, echoing the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the appellant had no role justifying irregularity under the CBLR, 2018.

4. Final Decision:
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The decision was based on the legal interpretation of the obligations and responsibilities of Customs Brokers under the CBLR, 2018, as supported by relevant case law and regulatory provisions.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 07.09.2021)