2022 (4) TMI 1648 - HC - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of the security deposit - levy of penalty - Failure to follow the condition mentioned under Regulation 11(a) 11(d) (k) and 11(n) of the CBLR 2013 - respondent has not obtained any job clearance from the exporter and the authorization has been obtained through intermediaries after filing of the shipping bill - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has held that the petitioner has not obtained the job clearance of export consignment directly through exporter M/s. Panel Pin Manufacturing Company but through series of intermediaries which included manipulation of Red Sanders smuggling. Further the Tribunal has noted that though there was verification of the KYC the petitioner had not interacted with the exporters and antecedents including verification of the factory premises of the exporter and the goods contained in the container. Further the Tribunal noted that the goods were stuffed in the presence of the Central Excise Officers and Excise Seals have been found to be intact. Having observed so the Tribunal goes on to observe that the petitioner was required to be more vigilant since their business was obtained through many middle persons without any acquaintance with the petitioner. Having held so the Tribunal ultimately in paragraph 11 holds that the revocation of the CHA Licence so granted to the petitioner is disproportionate. There are no reasons assigned by the Tribunal as to under what circumstances the Tribunal was of the opinion that the revocation of the CHA License was disproportionate qua the violation committed by the petitioner. Conclusion - The petitioner did not demonstrate a prima facie case for the grant of an interim order to operate the license during the appeal. The petitioner has not made out any prima facie case for grant of interim order to enable them to operate the licence during the pendency of the appeal filed by the department - Petition dismissed.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the setting aside of the order by the Tribunal is justified when the respondent did not follow the conditions mentioned under Regulation 11(a), 11(d), (k), and 11(n) of the Customs Broker in Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR)?2. Whether the Tribunal's order is correct when it is evident that the respondent did not obtain job clearance directly from the exporter and the authorization was obtained through intermediaries after filing the shipping bill?The Court analyzed the case by considering the relevant legal framework under the Customs Broker in Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) and the Customs Act, 1962. The Court examined the findings of the Tribunal, which highlighted that the petitioner did not obtain job clearance directly from the exporter and used intermediaries, including involvement in Red Sanders smuggling. The Tribunal also noted the lack of interaction with exporters, verification of antecedents, and goods contained in the container. Despite the presence of Central Excise Officers during stuffing, the Tribunal found the petitioner's conduct lacking vigilance due to reliance on middlemen without acquaintance. The Tribunal ultimately held that the revocation of the Customs House Agents (CHA) License was disproportionate.The Court found that the Tribunal did not provide sufficient reasons for deeming the revocation disproportionate. Additionally, the petitioner faced penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, which were being appealed before the Tribunal. Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for an interim order to operate the license during the appeal filed by the department. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the appeal was listed for direction to set a date for the hearing.The significant holdings of the judgment include the Court's determination that the petitioner did not demonstrate a prima facie case for the grant of an interim order to operate the license during the appeal. The Court emphasized the lack of justification for the revocation of the CHA License and the ongoing penalties under the Customs Act. The judgment established the principle that the revocation of licenses must be proportionate to the violations committed, and the Court's decision was based on a lack of prima facie evidence presented by the petitioner.