2020 (4) TMI 80 - AT - Customs

Revocation of custom broker license / CB License - charges leveled against the appellant are that the mandated advise was not forthcoming, that the appellant had filed the bill of entry without insisting upon the various prescribed clearances and that speed and efficiency, prescribed by the regulations, was also lacking - HELD THAT - It is seen from a perusal of the Regulations that the role of the customs broker is to act as an agent and to file the necessary papers for facilitating clearance. Regulation 10 imposes certain obligations on such customs brokers. The Regulation pertaining to rendering of proper advise has been wrongly held to have been breached as the Inquiry Report, along with various evidences, point out that such advise was indeed furnished to the importers; the non-compliance with such advise on the part of the importer did not, of itself, suffice for the customs broker to desist from acting for the importer - It is not prescribed in any part of the statute, or regulations framed there-under, that these documents were required to be filed along with the bill of entry. Admittedly, they were not; but such deficiency was not illegal and could have been rectified before out of charge was granted. The allegation that the appellant did not demonstrate the desired level of diligence and efficiency is too vague, and lacking in objectivity, for ascertainment without specificity. Moreover, neither the Inquiry Authority nor the Commissioner of Customs had taken it up on themselves to scrutinize the documentary and oral evidence for arriving at such a conclusion. Above all, we are concerned that such proceedings should comply strictly within the time-lines prescribed in law. The failure to do so casts a taint on the proceedings as one that was either not motivated by public interest or lacking gravitas expected when depriving a customs broker of the means of livelihood. The time lines prescribed in Regulation, 17 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 appear to have been complied with in its breach. This is not consistent with the mandated prescription in the Regulations. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of custom broker license under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 based on alleged contraventions of regulation 10(d), 10(e), and 10(m) - Compliance with statutory timelines for initiating revocation proceedings - Alleged irregularities in one import leading to license revocation - Proper advise, filing of necessary clearances, speed, and efficiency obligations of customs brokers - Interpretation of offense report under the Regulations - Compliance with time-lines prescribed in law for revocation proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Revocation of Custom Broker License:
The judgment concerns the revocation of a custom broker license under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 due to alleged contraventions of specific regulations. The appellant, M/s MM Logistics, challenged the revocation based on the proceedings initiated against them for irregularities in one import transaction. The Tribunal analyzed the obligations imposed on customs brokers under Regulation 10, focusing on the requirement of proper advice, filing of necessary clearances, and adherence to speed and efficiency standards.

2. Compliance with Statutory Timelines:
A significant aspect of the analysis was the strict adherence to the statutory timelines for initiating revocation proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely compliance with the regulations, raising concerns about the delay in serving the memorandum of charges and the initiation of proceedings. The judgment highlighted the necessity for proceedings to be conducted within the prescribed time limits to ensure fairness and legitimacy.

3. Interpretation of Offense Report:
The judgment delved into the interpretation of the offense report under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations. It scrutinized the timeline of events leading to the revocation decision, emphasizing the role of the offense report in informing the licensing authority of breaches. The Tribunal differentiated between a show cause notice and an offense report, emphasizing the need for clarity and specificity in identifying the triggering point for initiating revocation proceedings.

4. Alleged Irregularities and Compliance Obligations:
The Tribunal examined the specific allegations against the appellant regarding the failure to provide proper advice, file necessary clearances, and demonstrate speed and efficiency. It concluded that the appellant had fulfilled the obligations as a customs broker, highlighting that deficiencies in documentation could have been rectified before clearance. The judgment underscored the need for objective assessment and specificity in evaluating compliance with regulatory requirements.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the issues raised, including compliance with statutory timelines, interpretation of the offense report, and fulfillment of compliance obligations, the Tribunal found the revocation order to be contrary to law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, adherence to regulatory timelines, and clarity in interpreting regulatory provisions in customs broker licensing matters.