Customs broker cannot allow its licence to be used by someone else

Paramount Cargo & Logistics Solutions Vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi (CESTAT Delhi)

CESTAT Delhi held that customs broker cannot allow its licence to be used by someone else impersonating it. Accordingly, revocation of customs licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty justified.

Facts- The appellant is a Customs Broker with customs brokers’ licence which was valid till 24.10.2027 but the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) revoked it by order dated 13.02.2019 issued under Regulations 14 & 18 read with Regulation 17 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Commissioner also forfeited the security deposit of Rs. 75,000/- made by the appellant and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner found that the appellant found that the appellant had not complied with regulations 1(4), 10 (a),10(b), 10(d) and 10 (e) of the CBLR,2018. The appellant contests these findings of the Commissioner.

Conclusion- Just as one cannot allow ones driving licence to be used by someone else to drive or allow ones passport to be used by someone else to impersonate and travel internationally, the Customs broker cannot allow its licence to be used by someone else impersonating it. A Chartered Accountant cannot allow anyone else to certify accounts using his name and credentials. A member of the bar cannot, similarly, not allow someone else to impersonate him, use his bar licence and appear in the courts. If such violation by a Customs broker is either condoned or is viewed leniently, no sanctity will be left in the entire system of licensing Customs brokers. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can simply borrow someone else’s licence and keep filing Bills of Entry, Shipping Bills and other papers. In this case, we found that the appellant had allowed Ashish to use its credentials to file the Shipping Bill dated 17.5.2018 by impersonating as the appellant. The appellant attempted to prove that it itself had filed the Shipping Bill and claimed reliance on some emails which, according to the enquiry report, were not produced before the officer. In this appeal, the appellant enclosed some irrelevant emails at Annexure A18 as the correspondence between it and the exporter to support its claim that it had filed the Shipping Bill. The emails which were enclosed do not mention the Shipping Bill number and they were not from or to the email ID of the appellant or the exporter. Considering all these factors, we find that the revocation of the licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty on the appellant are just and fair and proportionate to the serious nature of the violations by the appellant.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.