Breach of regulation 11(m) of CBLR unsustainable as sub-let owner failed to dealt with export consignment

Mahendra Shipping Agency Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) (CESTAT Mumbai)

CESTAT Mumbai held that there is no breach of regulation 11(m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) as the licence is sub-let and two employees of sub-let owner failed to dealt with export consignment.

Facts- In this appeal, M/s Mahendra Shipping Agency, a customs broker, challenges revocation of licence no. 11/369 and forfeiture of security deposit under regulation 20 and regulation 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 in order of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai.

It is seen from the records that proceedings were initiated against the appellant by notice dated 15th April 2014 enclosing the grounds of imputation and articles of charge, for breach of regulation 10, 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 11(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, in connection with the handling of 66 packages of ‘readymade garments’ for export to Sudan and Nigeria against 12 shipping bills of M/s Orient Exports that were taken up for investigation by Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Mumbai as intimated by letter of 31st January 2014. The articles of charge relied upon the said letter of Commissioner of Customs (Export) as well as statements of two purported employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd recorded on 19th November 2013 and it is the claim of the appellant that the two, Mr Shailesh Watambale and Mr Ganesh Salaskar, were their employees in possession of ‘customs pass’ issued on their request of 4th July 2011 and 14th March 2012 respectively.

Conclusion- The findings, insofar as the alleged breach of regulation 11(m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 by not verifying antecedents and correctness of the import-export code (IEC) and other details is concerned, is also based entirely on the role played by M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd as ‘sub-let’ owner of the licence. It has been held that the two employees of the appellant were, in fact, employees of the M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd and, in view of our finding supra on the issue of ‘subletting’ as well as the employment of the said two persons and in the light of the uncontroverted finding that the two employees have not dealt with the export consignment, it cannot be said that this Regulation had been breached by the appellant.

Consequently, none of the charges stand proved against the appellant. It is also taken note of that the impugned order has chosen to examine certain other cases pertaining to allegations levelled against the present appellant which is not in conformity with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013; for a licensing authority to go beyond the articles of charge framed and to seize upon extraneous incidents, to the extent that the outcome of those proceedings remain unknown, is tantamount to extraneous influencing of the proceedings under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 that does not behove appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the licensing authority.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER

In this appeal, M/s Mahendra Shipping Agency, a customs broker, challenges revocation of licence no. 11/369 and forfeiture of security deposit under regulation 20 and regulation 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 in order¹ of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai.

2. It is seen from the records that proceedings were initiated against the appellant by notice dated 15^th April 2014 enclosing the grounds of imputation and articles of charge, for breach of regulation 10, 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 11(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, in connection with the handling of 66 packages of ‘readymade garments’ for export to Sudan and Nigeria against 12 shipping bills of M/s Orient Exports that were taken up for investigation by Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Mumbai as intimated by letter of 31^st January 2014. The articles of charge relied upon the said letter of Commissioner of Customs (Export) as well as statements of two purported employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd recorded on 19^th November 2013 and it is the claim of the appellant that the two, , Mr Shailesh Watambale and Mr Ganesh Salaskar, were their employees in possession of ‘customs pass’ issued on their request of 4^th July 2011 and 14^th March 2012 respectively.

3. The licence had been initially suspended by the competent authority which, thereafter and in accordance with procedure prescribing ‘post-decisional’ hearing, was ordered on 5^th March 2014 to be continued. The suspension was challenged and, taking note of the lack of any progress in proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 by then, the Tribunal² revoked the suspension while leaving it to licensing authority to continue the process envisaged under the Regulations. Commissioner of Customs (General) appealed against this revocation of suspension which was admitted by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 14^th September 2015 to decide on substantial question of law.

4. As, in the meanwhile and as noted supra, proceedings had been commenced by issue of articles of charge, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, while directing the customs broker to appear before the enquiry officer, disposed off the appeal also on 14^th September 2015 allowing the suspension to continue subject to fulfillment of assurance made on behalf of the appellant-Commissioner that the enquiry would be completed within three months from 23^rd September 2015 failing which the order of the Tribunal would come into force.

5. The above narration places the primary plea of Learned Consultant for the appellant, that ‘time-lines’ prescribed in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 had not been complied with, in a context for considering his submission that, in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Unison Clearing Pvt Ltd³, the delay on the part of licensing authority, with no contribution from their side, rendered adherence thereof to be mandatory and not merely directory.

6. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the proceedings were completed within the time allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the impugned order issued on 17^th February 2016 upon completion of enquiry on 5^th January 2016. It is also pointed out that the impugned order had specifically addressed that very ground raised in the impugned proceedings.

7. It would appear that the licensing authority has assumed that the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had, in fact, shifted the commencement of ‘time-lines’ and, thereby, precluded challenge to non-adherence thereof. This, in our view, is far from a correct appreciation of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court.

8. Before the Hon’ble High Court was challenge of order of Tribunal dated 9^th December 2014 revoking suspension of licence and disposed off on fact that was not existent when the appeal had been filed , commencement of enquiry contemplated under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 the lack of which had prompted the decision of the Tribunal. The temporary overruling of that decision by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was, specifically, conditional upon completion of enquiry within three months with effect from 23^rd September 2015; that no other issue, including adherence to ‘time-lines’ which, insofar as proceedings for revocation of licence is concerned, could be considered as relevant, was before the Hon’ble High Court is abundantly clear from

‘5. Needless to clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the rival contentions as far as legal question and also on the maintainability or continuation of the enquiry proceedings after the period specified under Regulation 19 and 20 of the Regulations.’

therein. Thereby, issue of non-conformity with ‘time-lines’ prescribed in the Regulation is not beyond the scope of appellate resolution now. The plea entered on behalf of ‘customs broker’ on the status of the inquiry that had commenced by then, and noted thus

‘3. Mr. Shah for the respondent submits that the original file would indicate that the respondent has fully co-operated and has not sought unnecessary or frivolous adjournment and has not made a request contrary to the law. Rather on some occasions, the Inquiry Officer himself was not available. Therefore, Revenue should not blame the respondent-agent for the so called delay in conclusion of the enquiry.’

by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, had not been controverted on behalf of the Commissioner; that is, therefore, common ground as on 14^th September 2014. The culmination of proceedings of inquiry, commenced on 15^th April 2014, by order dated 17^th February 2016 has, doubtlessly, been in breach of the ‘time-lines’ prescribed in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The justification offered in the impugned order to counter this allegation did not scrutinize the details and circumstances of the breach; nor is there any firm finding of contributory negligence on the part of ‘customs broker’ for the patent delay. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in re Unison Clearances Pvt Ltd, held that

‘14. Adherence to the time schedule prescribed in the Regulation 20 in a rigid way would lead to a situation where non-compliance with the time frame and even deviation by a single day would resultantly invalidate the entire action and the licence which is under suspension or which is revoked, is liable to be restored. The procedural formality as required to be complied within the time frame prescribed in the regulation, even if it is deviated for whatsoever reason beyond the control of the revenue or the Customs House Agent would result into consequences of declaring the entire action invalid if the provision is construed as mandatory. On the other hand, if the provision the construed as directory, the Customs House Agent would be deprived of his licence for considerable long time, if the time schedule is not adhered to the Revenue at its sweet choice would prolong the procedure and which is a likely situation, no attempts would be made to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period.

This is what has weighed in the mind of the High Courts while dealing with the said regulation and holding the same to be mandatory

The catena of judgments on which reliance has been placed to declare the provision as mandatory have referred to the extraordinary delay caused at the instance of the revenue in conducting inquiry against the Customs House Agent, depriving them of their means of livelihood and it was observed that the purpose of prescribed time limit was to safeguard the interest of the Customs Broker and smooth import and export of goods. By relying on a celebrated principle, when a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed in such a manner, the use of the word “shall” in the Regulation has been construed as mandatory.

With due respect to the finding so recorded in the judgment of the Madras Court in case of Masterstroke Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. v. C.C.(I), Chennai-I, reported in 2016 (332) ELT 300 (Madras) delivered by the Learned Single Judge, the parameters of construing a provision as mandatory or directory, when it deals with a discharge of a public duty and a resultant consequence has not been specifically taken into consideration. The salutary principle, whether statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner and time within which the duty shall be performed, the injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescription, is a relevant factor for holding such provision only as directory has been completely overlooked. As observed by Justice Denman in Caldow v. Pixell, (1877) 2 CPD 562, “in considering whether the statute is imperative, the balance may be struck between inconvenience or sometime rigidly adhered to, or sometime departure from this direction”. In that case, it was held that where a public officer was directed by statute to perform a duty within a specific time the case is established that the provisions are only directory, as already discussed above. There might be reason why such time limits cannot be adhered to and these reasons may be at times attributable to the revenue and some time to the Customs house agent. Strict adherence to the said time limit and not making it even slightly flexible would warrant a situation where even one day deviation from the time line would be equally fatal as a delay of one year. This surely is not the intention in framing the Regulation. Undisputedly, the intention is to curb the delay in concluding the inquiries, however, it should not be stretched to an extent where it would defeat the very purpose of the Regulation, being to enforce a regime of discipline in the Customs arena and it would result in letting the miscreant set loose by taking benefit of deviation of the time schedule. The said CESTAT West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai (supra) has in detail dealt with the Regulation 22 and has examined whether it has to be construed as mandatory or directory. Relying on catena of judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and specifically in Delhi Air Take Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another, CESTAT has concluded that while deciding whether the time period is directory or mandatory, it would be seen that the purpose of law prescribing it as mandatory and consequently the absence of provisions of consequences in case of non-compliance with the requirement would indicate that the provisions are directory irrespective of use of the word “shall”. The CESTAT has concluded that if the time limits are construed as mandatory and the matter is put to an end, the purpose of Regulation would be defeated and so would be the intention behind framing such a Regulation. On the other hand, if there is no consequence stated in the regulation for non-adherence is a time period for conducting the inquiry, the time line cannot be proved to be fatal to the outcome of the inquiry. Based on these observations the Tribunal had held the Regulation is directory in nature. However, in the present judgment which is impugned before us, the CESTAT has taken a view contrary to its earlier view in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and after referring to certain precedents where a view was taken that the regulations are mandatory delivered by the Tribunal itself, the Tribunal was pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order being not sustainable and allowed the appeals. It is to be noted that the Member Judicial (Ramesh Nair) who is a party to the judgment delivered by the said CESTAT in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the timelimit contained in Regulation 20 cannot be construed to be mandatory and is held to be directory. As it is already observed above that though the time line framed in the Regulation need to be rigidly applied, fairness would demand that when such time limit is crossed, the period subsequently consumed for completing the inquiry should be justified by giving reasons and the causes on account of which the timelimit was not adhered to. This would ensure that the inquiry proceedings which are initiated are completed expeditiously, are not prolonged and some checks and balances must be ensured. One step by which the unnecessary delays can be curbed is recording of reasons for the delay or non-adherence to this timelimit by the Officer conducting the inquiry and making him accountable for not adhering to the time schedule. These reasons can then be tested to derive a conclusion whether the deviation from the time line prescribed in the Regulation, is “reasonable”. This is the only way by which the provisions contained in Regulation 20 can be effectively implemented in the interest of both parties, namely, the Revenue and the Customs House Agent.’

to circumscribe the enforcement of the said prescription. With lack of recourse to escape clause permitted by the decision in re Unison Clearances Pvt Ltd, the non-observance of the, and thus transformed, mandatory requirement jeopardizes the revocation of licence.

9. It is also seen that the articles of charges against the appellant can be perceived as being in two spheres with one necessarily following from the other. The primary charge is that the appellant has been in breach of regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 requiring the licence to be operated only by the licencee or his authorized person/employee which the inquiry authority, on the basis of certain facts and circumstances as well as statements of two persons said to be employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders, concluded as having been ‘sublet’ or otherwise transferred. The findings on the other charges, relating to obligations devolving upon customs brokers, held against the appellant herein is inevitable consequence of the finding on the primary charge. Accordingly, it would be appropriate for us to examine the sustaining of the primary charge and only proceed to look at the submissions in relation to other charges upon such being so.

10. According to the inquiry report, M/s Orient Exports had been a client of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders which the two individuals, associated with the export process and whose statements had been relied upon in the enquiry, had undertaken as employees of, and remunerated with salaries from, M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders despite which access was provided by the appellant to credentials required for handling of shipping bills and obtaining of customs clearance. According to Learned Consultant, the appellant was not aware that the two persons were employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders which, he contends in any case, is no bar to employment by appellant and, therefore, cannot be said to have excluded them from being their employees authorized to handle processes that a customs broker undertakes. It was also pointed out that it was not unusual for new customers to be brought in on reference from ‘freight forwarders’ instead of directly from the exporters themselves. Furthermore, he contends that the alleged over­valuation of the export consignment had no causal connection with the manner in which M/s Orient Exports came to be their customer.

11. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the inquiry authority had carried out examination-in-chief of the two employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders in which the earlier deposition, in statements recorded under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, of being employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders was confirmed. It was also pointed that, while applying for customs pass for these two persons, the appellant had clearly stated that they were full-time employees of the appellant while the facts now established the contrary. He contended that confusion by the ‘authorised person’ of the appellant to receiving payments from these two persons sufficed as evidence that the licence had been ‘sub-let’ for consideration.

12. It would appear that the allegation of ‘sub-letting’ of licence has been bandied rather feely without throwing light on the meaning thereof. Business models adopted by customs brokers could vary according to competencies – core and peripheral – that clients expect from such logistics provider and mere presence of another entity in the service chain does not, of itself, constitute sub-letting To the extent that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 is imprecise about the situation envisaged in regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, such loose characterization of circumstance cannot be ground for interdiction of operations as customs broker. It would also appear that the inquiry authority, as also the licensing authority and the authorized representative, harbour pre­conceived notions, conditioned by their own terms of employees which, considering the obligations of public service, restricts employment to single, unique and exclusive employer reflected in letter of appointment and all aspects, thereafter, detailed in written record. Such minutiae of ‘master-servant’ engagement may not, necessarily, prevail outside such sphere and, most certainly, not in smaller operations. Such surmise that records of salary or letter of appointment are material to employment without scrutiny of practice prevailing in the business segment of the appellant is not a proper basis for enquiry proceedings to build its report upon. We cannot but take notice that the Regulations are also deficient in prescribing that the employees of ‘customs broker’ licencee eschews part-time employment elsewhere and, in the absence of such directions/ conditions, it would be improper for the licensing authority to insinuate so for invoking detriment. The deficiencies, or deliberate omissions, in the Regulations is not a weapon of resort in the absence of evidence clearly bringing out alienation of the licence. Therefore, there is not sufficient evidence to establish the charge that the appellant has been in breach of regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.

13. The impugned order has arraigned the appellant on the other charge of not knowing the customer upon the foundation that the licence had been ‘sub-let’ to the two persons. It is alleged that the customs broker had granted access of the credentials, necessary for undertaking customs clearance, to persons not in their employment. The submission of customs broker, and not controverted in the impugned order, that access was provided only to privately sourced software used for compilation of data to be filed under ICEGATE strikes at the very root of the allegation of illicit grant of access. Hence, the conclusion that the appellant had not obtained authorization from the customer is a conclusion that may not sustain. It is clear from letter dated 20^th July 2013 that authorization had been obtained by them, albeit indirectly, from M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd. Insofar as the allegation that regulation 11(d) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 had been breached is concerned, it would appear that the charge has been upheld on the alleged role of the two employees of M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd. In the light of our finding supra that such employment with M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd did not preclude employment with the appellant and that same employees had been issued with customs pass as employees of appellant, the finding against the appellant does not stand. Breach of regulation 11(d) and 11(e) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 has been alleged on the finding of export processing having been handled by M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd but their operation as possible intermediary between the appellant and the exporter is no ground to hold that the processes were carried out through a person other than themselves. Accordingly, the finding against the appellant on these two charges will not sustain.

14. Likewise, the finding that the customs broker had, contrary to regulation 11(m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, failed to discharge duties with utmost speed, efficiency and without any delay has not been perceived appropriately by the licensing authority as seen from the decision of the Tribunal in East West Freight Carriers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (General)⁴ holding that

‘10. According to Regulation 2(c) of CHALR, 2004, ‘Customs House Agent’ means a person licensed under these regulations to act as agent for the transaction of any business relating to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods at any Customs Station. Regulation 13(n) ibid casts a duty on the CHA to discharge his duties as Customs House Agent with utmost speed and efficiency and without avoidable delay. Regulation 19(8) cast the liability on the Customs House Agent to exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of any such employees in the transaction of business as agents and be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees in regard to their employment. It was strongly argued by the ld. Counsel that the Inquiry Officer had dropped all the charges, whereas the Commissioner established all charges to be true without any basis. In our view it is settled position that being the deciding authority under the Regulation, the Commissioner can differ with the Inquiry Officer. However we have to examine whether in the facts of the present case the ld. Commissioner is justified in differing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the records. There is no delay or inefficiency on the part of the Appellants. Soon after the cargo and papers were received, the formalities of registration were completed and the cargo was presented before the proper officer. This is not the case of Revenue that the documents presented were not in accordance with the procedure relating to clearance of export goods. In our view the word ‘efficiency’ as used in Regulation 13(n) indicates that the CHA is under an obligation to ensure that all the requisite details are given in the declarations which are prepared as per the details/declarations given by the exporter. It is not the case of the department that the details that are given by the exporter and mentioned by the CHA in the documents are different and therefore it can’t be said that the CHA did not perform his duty with efficiency. We concur with the submission of ld. counsel for the Appellants that there is no obligation on a CHA or his employee to check, verify the contents of the cargo or to verify the value to ascertain whether the declarations made by the exporter are correct or otherwise. No CHA can empower its employee to open any package, which comes in sealed condition, to check the contents therein because then there would be complains and allegations of theft etc. No evidence has been brought on record to suggest that the employees of the Appellant have acted in collusion with the exporter or had behaved in any manner unbecoming of a CHA other than the allegation that the employees did not inspect the goods in question. It is nowhere alleged that the CHA was aware of any such mis-declaration. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer that since the charge basically is of mis-declaration of the export charge, in terms of value and no allegations of aiding or abetting are made against the Appellant (CHA), the charge of misconduct on the part of its employees cannot be sustained. When the show cause notice was issued to the Exporter in the year 2008 itself, nothing adverse was mentioned about the Appellants therein nor was there any discussion or otherwise about the Appellants in the that Order-in-Original dated 29.10.2008. No valid reason has been given by the ld. Commissioner to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. There is no evidence that any provisions of the CHALR, 2004 has been violated by CHA or that he had advised exporter to overvalue the goods. Bills of entry/shipping bills were filed by the appellant based on the document furnished by the exporter. There is no evidence on record that the appellant came to know about any irregularity before the same was detected by the department or that he misguided the concerned client. All that the CHA is required to do, is to discharge its function in accordance with CHALR, which in our considered view the Appellant did in the present case. Therefore there is no violation of Regulation 13(n) or Regulation 19(8) ibid.

11. In a matter on similar facts titled as Krishna Shipping Agency Vs. C.C. (Airport & Admin.), Kolkata reported in 2017 (348) E.L.T. 502 (Tri.-Kolkata), in which after differing with the inquiry report the which after differing with the inquiry report the 10 C/516/2012 Adjudicating Authority held CHA ‘guilty’ and revoked its license, a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Kolkata allowed the Appeal filed by CHA and held as under:-

“As per the above regulation appellant is required to verity the antecedents of his clients and suitably advise them. It is observed that at no stage appellant had the knowledge that there is any irregularity in the export/import consignments. The goods imported were put to first check examination and the importer very well exists. Similarly the export consignment was received in a sealed container duly examined and certified by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The exporter is also existing. Bills of entry and shipping bill were filed by the appellants based on the documents furnished by the importer/exporter. If there was any irregularity in the documents then the same was also available before the assessing officers and the Customs examining officer. If the same could not be detected by the appellant the same also could not be detected by departmental assessing/examining officers. There is no evidence on record that appellant came to know of any irregularity before the same were detected by the department or that he did not advise the concerned clients. Appellant was also exonerated by the departmental inquiry officer. It is also observed that the points of difference from the Inquiry report are not so glaring to justify revocation of CHA license as held by the adjudicating authority. The whole spirit of obligation of the CHA under the CHALR is to establish the identity of the importer/exporter and appropriately advise his clients which in the present proceedings are existing and reasonable steps were taken by the appellant to comply with Regulations 13(a), (d) and (o) of CHALR. Accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside OIO dated 21-1-2015 passed by the adjudicating authority.”

eroding the allegation.

15. The findings, insofar as the alleged breach of regulation 11(m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 by not verifying antecedents and correctness of the import-export code (IEC) and other details is concerned, is also based entirely on the role played by M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd as ‘sub-let’ owner of the licence. It has been held that the two employees of the appellant were, in fact, employees of the M/s Millenium Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd and, in view of our finding supra on the issue of ‘subletting’ as well as the employment of the said two persons and in the light of the uncontroverted finding that the two employees have not dealt with the export consignment, it cannot be said that this Regulation had been breached by the appellant.

16. Consequently, none of the charges stand proved against the appellant. It is also taken note of that the impugned order has chosen to examine certain other cases pertaining to allegations levelled against the present appellant which is not in conformity with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013; for a licensing authority to go beyond the articles of charge framed and to seize upon extraneous incidents, to the extent that the outcome of those proceedings remain unknown, is tantamount to extraneous influencing of the proceedings under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 that does not behove appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the licensing authority.

17. In view of our findings supra, we see no reason for the continuation of revocation of the licence or forfeiture of the security deposit. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/04/2023)

Notes :- 

¹ order-in-original no. 77/CAC/PCC(G)/BB/CBS/ (Admn) dated 17^th February 2016

² Order no. A/1768/14/CSTB/C-1 dated 9^th December 2014

³ [2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom)]

⁴ [final order no. A/85026/2019 dated 8^th January 2019 in appeal no. C/516/2012 against order-in-original no. 14/2012/CAC/CC (G)/SLM dated 21^st March 2012