2024 (1) TMI 737 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - apparent mis-declaration with reference to description, quantity and value of the goods - violation of provisions of Regulation 10(d), (e), (m) and 13(12) of the CBLR. Whether the gravity of the offence of the appellant is grave enough for revocation of license? - HELD THAT - The jurisdiction for any action against the appellant lies with the jurisdictional authority only. The action against the CB was initiated based on an offence report which was received from the Customs office at the port - It has also been argued that the appellant was not aware of any alleged manipulation of import invoices or valuation of goods. In the instant case, there is no allegation of any such violation. Infact the provisions of CBLR, 2018 as invoked in the show cause notice read with the facts of case clearly establishes the failure of the appellant in discharging his responsibilities as per the CBLR, 2018. Whether the said violations attracted the punishment of revocation of the CB license? - HELD THAT - In the instant case, it is established that the G Card holder was present during the examination of the goods by the Dock officers, and did not inform the authorities as required under Regulation 10(d) and 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. It is also an admitted fact that the importer in his statement has claimed that the appellant did not inform him of other regulatory compliance requirements for the goods imported by him. This is a clear failure of appellant s duties as a Customs Broker. Infact, the G card holder has accepted that he failed to bring the discrepancies to the notice of the concerned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner as the dock officers did not raise any query. This is not acceptable, as it clearly indicates the abdication of the responsibility by the appellant/his employee, and highlights the mala fide intent of the appellant. Once a violation of CBLR Regulations is admitted, the Revenue has to follow the discipline governing the Customs House Agents and as such, the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to revoke the license of Customs House Agent and also to forfeit his security if such agent fails to comply with the provisions of Regulation or gets involved in the Act which would amount to mis-conduct/offence under the Act. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of COMMR. OF CUS. C. EX., HYDERABAD-II VERSUS HB. CARGO SERVICES 2011 (3) TMI 816 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT held that in disciplinary matters, the Commissioner is responsible for happenings in Customs area, and for discipline to be maintained, if he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, CESTAT would, ordinarily, not interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties likely to be faced by the CHA or their employees. Decision is best left to the disciplinary authority, save in exceptional cases where punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate or is mala fide. Interference with punishment imposed would be justified only when it shocks conscience of CESTAT. There is no irregularity committed by the Adjudicating Authority while revoking the license of the appellant and imposing the consequential punishments under the Regulations - there are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the revocation of the Customs Broker License and forfeiture of the security deposit.
2. Compliance with the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
3. Jurisdiction of action against the Customs Broker.
4. Appropriateness of the punishment of revocation of the license.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the revocation of the Customs Broker License and forfeiture of the security deposit
M/s Global Links (appellant) appealed against the order confirming the revocation of their Customs Broker License and forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant argued that they adhered to the Customs Act and CBLR, 2018, and denied any wrongdoing. They contended that the alleged violations occurred in Mumbai, not Delhi, and thus no action was warranted in Delhi jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Compliance with the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018
The learned Authorised Representative highlighted that the appellant violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(m) of CBLR, 2018, by failing to inform the importer about compliance requirements and not notifying the authorities about discrepancies in the imported goods. The appellant's employee, a G card holder, admitted to these failures. The Tribunal examined the facts and confirmed the violations of CBLR, 2018, by the appellant.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of action against the Customs Broker
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument regarding jurisdiction, stating that the appellant is registered as a Customs Broker in New Delhi, and therefore, the jurisdiction for any action lies with the Delhi authorities. The action was based on an offence report received from the Customs office at the port.

Issue 4: Appropriateness of the punishment of revocation of the license
The Tribunal emphasized the responsibility of a Customs Broker in customs operations and the necessity to fulfill obligations under CBLR, 2018. The appellant's failure to inform the authorities and the importer about compliance requirements indicated a clear violation of their duties. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to revoke the license and forfeit the security deposit if the Customs Broker fails to comply with the regulations or is involved in misconduct. The Tribunal found no irregularity in the Adjudicating Authority's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the revocation of the Customs Broker License and forfeiture of the security deposit were upheld.