2021 (3) TMI 1119 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - Forfeiture of Security deposit - levy of penalty - proper verification by the Customs Broker or not - compliance with the Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 or not - delay of 24 days in issuing the Show Cause Notice under CBLR, 2018 - Violation of Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018. Violation of Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority has held that they have violated Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 for which the penalty as well as forfeiture of security deposit has been done - In para 14.4, the adjudicating authority has noted that the appellant verified the IEC and GST registration from the official website of DGFT and GSTIN and also the PAN and Aadhar details. From such facts, it is clear that the appellant has done the duty of verification as required by an ordinary prudent person while handling customs clearance work. Time Limitation - Compliance with Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 or not - HELD THAT - As per this Regulation, the Show Cause Notice under CBLR 2018 should be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report - In the present case, there is no separate offence report. The Show Cause Notice under section 124 was issued to the appellant on 27.2.2019. The said Show Cause Notice can be considered as an offence report since the department was fully aware with the details of the offence on such date of issuance of Show Cause Notice. When computed from 27.2.2019, Show Cause Notice under CBLR 2018 ought to have been issued within 90 days whereas the department has issued the Show Cause Notice under CBLR only on 21.6.2019. This is well beyond the period prescribed under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018. The proceedings are vitiated by noncompliance of time limit prescribed in the Regulation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with time limit under CBLR, 2018 for issuing Show Cause Notice
2. Allegation of not verifying antecedents and KYC details of exporter
3. Violation of Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018
4. Forfeiture of security deposit and penalty imposition
5. Duty of verification by a prudent person in customs clearance work

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the proceedings were flawed due to non-compliance with the time limit under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The Show Cause Notice was issued after a delay of 24 days from the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of the offense report. Citing relevant case law, the appellant contended that this delay vitiated the proceedings. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limit and citing previous court decisions to support the view that such non-compliance renders the proceedings unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

2. On the issue of not verifying antecedents and KYC details of the exporter, the appellant contended that they had taken necessary precautions and obtained various documents from the exporter, including authorization, KYC details, and other relevant documents. They argued that they had fulfilled their obligations as a prudent person handling export transactions. The Tribunal noted the steps taken by the appellant in verifying details from official websites and documents, concluding that the appellant had met the duty of verification expected from a prudent person in such transactions.

3. Regarding the violation of Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018, the adjudicating authority had found the appellant in breach of this regulation and imposed a penalty and ordered forfeiture of the security deposit. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this finding, noting that the appellant had indeed verified essential details as required by a prudent person in their position. The Tribunal concluded that the findings of the adjudicating authority were not in line with the facts presented and set aside the impugned order.

4. The original authority had imposed a penalty and ordered the forfeiture of part of the security deposit based on the alleged violations. The appellant challenged these decisions, arguing that the penalty and forfeiture were unjustified given their compliance with the necessary verification procedures. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty and forfeiture orders.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the duty of verification incumbent upon a customs broker handling clearance work. It noted that the appellant had taken significant steps to verify the details of the exporter, including checking official websites and documents. The Tribunal found that the appellant had fulfilled the duty expected from a prudent person in such a role and, therefore, set aside the penalty and forfeiture orders imposed by the original authority.