Kushagra Shipping Agency Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that charge of violation of regulation 10(q) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation cannot be sustained as importer decided to relinquish the goods. Accordingly, revocation of licence not justified.
Facts- The appellant is a Customs broker. On 24th February 2022, a suspension order was served to the appellant. Subsequently, a show cause notice was served to the appellant for revocation of their license. An Enquiry has been ordered and on completion of the Enquiry an Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In the Enquiry Report, the enquiry officer held that the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 10 (d) by not advising the importer to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. It was also held that the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 10(q) of CBLR 2018 also.
Accordingly, Principal Commissioner of Customs has passed the impugned order revoking the CB License of the Appellant and forfeited the security deposit. Aggrieved against the revocation of the CB License and imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed this appeal.
Conclusion- Held that regarding violation of the Regulation 10 (q) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, we observe that the appellant had co-operated with the Custom Authorities. There is no evidence available on record that the appellant has not cooperated with the authorities. Once the importer has decided to relinquish the goods and asked the appellant not to proceed in the matter, the appellant had no further role in the matter. Therefore, we hold that the allegation that the appellant had violated Regulation 10 (q) of CBLR 2018 is not tenable. Accordingly, we hold that the charge of violation of Regulation 10 (q) of CBLR 2018, is not substantiated.
