2024 (4) TMI 829 - AT - Customs

Revocation of the Customs Broker Licence - forfeiture of the full amount of security deposit - confiscation - Penalty in exercise of powers vested under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) - Goods imported being edible oil - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the goods imported being edible oil were brought into India in Bangladeshi tankers having been given permission for entry by the Proper Officer of Customs. It is on record that samples of imported goods were drawn, goods assessed and duty paid thereon. The imported oil was transferred to India tankers, which were taken up for verification of the nature of the edible oil and subsequently seized. The tankers, therefore, bringing oil into India were reportedly not available when DRI officers visited the spot. The Indian trucks were parked in private parking place where trucks loaded with export cargo were parked in an unorganised manner depending upon the availability of space that the trucks loaded with imported oil could manouvre and that is said to be the reason for not being instantly able to take out the vehicle from the jumbled up trucks, trailers and tankers. Also, it is not at all the case that eventually the tankers could not be produced for consideration and sampling by the officers undertaken and anything contrary came to notice. When the lot of export cargo blocking the movement, were cleared, the subject tankers were said to be brought to the area in front of the Customs Office for needful. Further, it cannot be denied, that the tankers loaded with imported oil could not move without Bills of Entry and other import documents which were still lying with the Customs authorities for want of out of charge. We therefore find it highly unjustified to initiate such harsh action without plausible assessment of the ground realities. Further, it is not that inquiry was initiated against the appellants alone. Also, there is no specific charge of mens rea. Therefore, under the circumstances bona fide s of the Customs Broker could not be doubted, merely on the basis of obligation of a Customs Broker, simpliciter. Further, the importers have readily joined the investigations and admittedly the duty as assessed had been duly paid by the importers, before even the cause of this action was initiated. Moreover, nothing wrong with the consignment imported was detected by the authorities as a result of their enquiry. Further, it is also on record that the goods as well as the vehicles after enquiry were instantly allowed release (though provisionally) to the owners and no penal provisions u/s 112 of the Act were invoked. We therefore are of the view that there was absolutely no justification to subject the Customs Broker to action as aforesaid under the provisions of CBLR, 2018 and take recourse to punitive action like revocation of the Customs Broker License, forfeiture of their security deposit besides imposition of penalty on the appellants. The charges levelled by the department are therefore unsustainable and without even a fig leaf of credence. Thus, the impugned order is set aside, with all consequential benefits to the appellants as accruable, in law. The Customs Broker License of the appellant is directed to be restored forthwith. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is thereby allowed, with consequential relief as per law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Customs Broker Licence and forfeiture of security deposit.
2. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
3. Alleged violation of regulation 10(n) leading to revocation of licence.
4. Compliance with directions from DRI regarding imported goods.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(j) and Section 111(k) of the Act.
7. Application of Regulation 10(d) & 10(e) of the CBLR.
8. Lack of justification for punitive action against Customs Broker.

On the first issue of revocation of Customs Broker Licence and forfeiture of security deposit, the appellant challenged the subsequent revocation order issued within two months of the initial revocation. The Tribunal noted that the initial revocation order was quashed in a previous judgment. The appellant argued that an already revoked licence cannot be revoked again during the currency of the previous revocation order.

Regarding compliance with DRI directions on imported goods, the appellant had filed Bills of Entry for importers and complied with instructions to recall oil tankers for examination. Subsequently, penalties were imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, which the appellant contested, claiming no offence was committed.

In analyzing the case, the Tribunal observed that the impugned show cause notice was issued for confiscation of goods under Section 111(j) and Section 111(k) of the Act. The appellant's compliance with regulations and lack of unauthorized import routes were highlighted to argue against the charges.

The Tribunal further examined the obligations of a Customs Broker under Regulation 10, emphasizing due diligence in compliance with customs laws. The lack of infrastructure at Ghojadanga Land Customs Station was detailed to support the appellant's contentions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justification for the punitive actions taken against the Customs Broker. The charges were deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of the Customs Broker License. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.