2024 (9) TMI 1615 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker license of the appellant - forefeiture of entire security deposit - Regulation 19(1) of CBLR 2013 - HELD THAT - The SCN issued is dated 25.11.2013 upon the filing of the Bill of Entry dated 21.11.2012. Order of suspension of License is dated 15.01.2014, the inquiry report is dated 22.05.2014; the SCN under CBLR is dated 25.02.2014. Finally, the order of revocation dated 12.02.2015 came to be passed by the Commissioner. Going by the dates, it is tending to agree with the assertions of the ld. Advocate that the order of suspension of license has been passed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and hence, the suspension order is clearly in violation of Regulation 20(2) ibid. But what is challenged is the order of Revocation dated 12.02.2015 and hence, the legality or the correctness of an order dated 15.01.2014 cannot be decided now. There are gravity of the alleged offence, if at all committed by the appellant does not call for capital punishment resulting in the very suspension of his Customs Broker License. The same, according, is also highly disproportionate. Initially, the order of suspension of license was passed in 2014, thereafter the impugned order was passed in the year 2015 and since then, the appellant is out of business which is perhaps its only source of income. The appellant must have suffered enough financially which itself is a deterrent factor and hence, to fasten the appellant with a permanent sealing down of its customs broker license may not be called for since the consequences of revocation are very serious since, apart from the members of own family, there may be employees and the members of their family who would be dependent for their sustenance/survival. It would meet the ends of justice, if it is ordered for re-issuance of its Customs Brokers License subject to fulfilment of the prescribed procedural requirements, but however, it is not proposed to interfere with impugned order insofar as the forfeiture of security deposit is concerned. The appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Commissioner was justified in revoking the Customs Broker license of the appellant.
2. Whether the order of Commissioner to forfeit the entire security deposit is in order.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved a case where a Customs Broker's license was revoked by the Commissioner of Customs. The case stemmed from a show cause notice issued based on an imported consignment of goods, revealing the alleged smuggling of poppy seeds concealed within limestone powder. The appellant, a Customs Broker, was accused of facilitating the clearance of the consignment using an unauthorized person and failing to verify the antecedents of their client, which violated regulations. The Commissioner suspended and later revoked the Customs Broker's license, along with forfeiting the security deposit.

The Tribunal analyzed the events and dates related to the case, noting that the suspension order was issued after the prescribed period of limitation, which was a violation of Regulation 20(2). However, the focus of the appeal was on the order of revocation dated 12.02.2015, not the suspension order. The Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offense but deemed the revocation of the license as disproportionate and a severe consequence for the appellant. The Tribunal considered the financial impact on the appellant, who had been out of business since the suspension, and highlighted the livelihoods of the appellant's family and employees who depended on the business.

Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to partially allow the appeal. They ordered the re-issuance of the Customs Broker's license subject to fulfilling procedural requirements, considering it would meet the ends of justice. However, they chose not to interfere with the forfeiture of the security deposit. The Tribunal concluded that revoking the license permanently was not warranted, given the financial impact and dependence of the appellant's family and employees on the business. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 27.09.2024.