2024 (3) TMI 706 - HC - Customs

Revocation of the customs broker licence - Misuse of G-Cards - sub-letting of the licence on commission basis for a monthly consideration - contravention of regulations 10, 11 (a), (b), (d), (e) (m) of the Regulations - HELD THAT - We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that a Customs Broker occupies a very important position in the customs house. A lot of trust is kept in the customs broker by the importers, exporters as well as by the Government agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations have been framed and there has to be strict compliance thereof. Any contravention of such obligation would invite sanction as provided in the Regulations. We are of the view that the appellant having admitted permitting the use of his licence by third party in exchange for monthly remuneration, the punishment of cancellation of licence is not disproportionate. Further, as noticed no substantial question of law arises in the subject appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the revocation of a custom broker license due to subletting and misuse of the license, contravention of Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, proportionality of punishment, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.

Revocation of Custom Broker License:
The appellant, a custom broker, had sub-let the license to individuals for a monthly consideration and allowed them to use his digital signature for uploading data, leading to fraudulent imports. The Commissioner of Customs revoked the license citing violations of Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, specifically Regulation 10 prohibiting sale or transfer of the license, and Regulations 11 (a) and 11 (b) mandating personal transaction of business or through an approved employee. The Tribunal upheld the revocation based on the appellant's admission of permitting unauthorized use of the license and contravention of regulations.

Proportionality of Punishment:
The appellant argued that the revocation of the custom broker license was harsh and disproportionate. Citing a previous judgment, the appellant contended that the punishment should be proportionate to the conduct. However, the Court held that customs brokers hold a position of trust and strict compliance with regulations is essential. The Court distinguished this case from the precedent cited, emphasizing that the appellant had knowingly permitted the misuse of his license for monetary gain, justifying the revocation as a proportionate sanction.

Interpretation of Legal Provisions:
The Court referred to previous judgments to support its decision, highlighting the seriousness of subletting a license and the need for strict enforcement of regulations. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Court emphasized that subletting a license amounts to serious misconduct. In the present case, the Court found that the appellant's admission of allowing third-party use of the license for remuneration justified the revocation. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Separate Judgment by Judges:
The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja.