Case Law Details
Safe Cargo Clearing Services Vs C.C. Ludhiana (CESTAT Chandigarh)
CESTAT Chandigarh held that extreme penalty of revocation of custom broker licence for violating obligation under regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 unwarranted, however, imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security justified.
Facts- The appellant holds a Custom broker license and was permitted to work as a custom broker at various customs stations. As per the communication from Additional Commissioner, Ludhiana, the appellant has been found involved in a case of fraudulent import pertaining to M/s. PS Traders. As per the mandate of the Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 read with the Circular No. 09/2010-Customs dated 08.04.2010, it was incumbent upon the CB to verify identity and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information which apparently the CB have failed to do.
Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Regulations 16 (1) of CBLR, 2018, suspended the Customs Broker License issued to Safe Cargo Clearing Services. The suspension of CHA licence was continued vide order in original dated 15.11.2021 by the Commissioner, Customs and later the license of the Custom Broker M/s. Safe Cargo Clearing Services 52, Rasila Nagar, opposite BBMB Power House, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana was revoked and penalty of Rs. 50000/- has been imposed vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that in the present case, the appellant illegally cleared the consignment having cigarettes and later on deleted all the WhatsApp chats/call records with their crime partners. Further, Sunil Dutt has categorically admitted in his statement that he has not obtained any KYC documents from the actual importer and all the documents including the KYC were given to him by Sandeep Kumar inspector and he has never contacted and met the actual importer at any point of time. Thereby, he has violated the regulation 10(n) which prescribed that the custom broker has to verify correctness of the importer exporter code (IEC) number, goods and services tax identification number (GSTIN), identify of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The appellant had failed to verify the correctness of IEC, identity and whereabouts of the firms with authentic data and information thereby violating the obligations cast upon it under Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018.
Held that he has not fulfilled the obligation under regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 but his act and conduct does not warrant the imposition of extreme penalty of revocation of custom broker licence depriving him of his livelihood. But certainly his conduct warrants, the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit. Accordingly, held that revocation of custom broker licence of the appellant is not warranted and we set aside the revocation. As far as the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit are concerned, we are of the opinion that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and forfeiture of security are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 vide which the Ld. Commissioner has revoked Custom Broker Licence of the appellant under Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018 and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018.
2. The Ld. Commissioner also forfeited the security deposit made by the Custom Broker at the time of taking licence in terms of Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018.
3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant holds Custom broker licence and was permitted to work as custom broker at various customs stations.
3.1 A communication from. Additional Commissioner, Ludhiana Customs Commissionerate, vide letter Cus/SIIB/MISC/451/2021-SIIB-0/0-Commr-Cus-Ludhiana dated 07.09.2021 was received wherein it has been reported that Custom Broker has been found involved in a case of fraudulent import pertaining to M/s PS Traders Shop. No. 20/100, Turi Bazar, Near Anardana Chowk, Patiala. Details of case is as under:
a In a Bill of Entry No. 3479461 dated 08.04.2021 filed by M/s. Safe Cargo Clearing Services on behalf of M/s P. S. Traders, Shop No. 20/100, Turi Bazar, Near Anardana Chowk, Patiala, Punjab holding IEC No. GAUPS9998M, for import of 14836 Kg of Aluminium Scrap under CTH 76020010 having assessable value of Rs. 12,51,524/- After issuance of Customs Out of Charge (COC), during transit, the consignment was intercepted by the Preventive Wing, CGST Commisssione rate, Ludhiana and apart from 10.300 MT Iron Scrap, 3960000 Cigarette Sticks of 100 mm length with Filters & four Alloy Wheels recovered. A case was booked and later, goods have been seized under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.
b. Certain documents such as examination reports, detention memo, statements of Customs Officers namely Shri Sandeep Kumar, Inspector &Shri Rambir Singh, Supdt. statements of Customs Brcker Shri Abdesh Kumar of M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services, Ludhiana and Shri Sunil Dutt, G-Card holder working with M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services, Ludhiana have been provided to this office by the CGST Commisssione rate, Ludhiana. Further, during investigation by this office statements of Shri Prabhjot Singh, proprietor of M/s P. S. Traders, Patiala, Custom Broker Shri Paramjit Singh, G-Card holder of M/s DAS Logistics Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana, representative of Shipping Line and others have been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962,
c. In this case, it has been seen that the said consignment was marked for 50% examination, however was cleared from the Customs Area without conducting examination, without depositing of Customs duty & other levies and also on the basis of manual COC. Even Customs seal was not broken. Further, Cigarettes imported in the said consignment in the guise of Aluminum Scrap / by concealing in Scrap are under prohibition The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 provides that “No person shall import cigarettes or any other tobacco products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration or for sale in India unless every package of cigarettes or any other Tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning”. In the instant case, cigarettes have been found without statutory pictorial & textual warning
(d) As per Regulation 10 (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (Notified under Notification No. 41/2018-Customs (NT) dated 14.05.2018. The Customs Broker has an Obligation to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. But Sh. Sunil Dutt, G-card of M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services in his statement dated 12.04.2021 recorded under CGST Act, 2017 himself admitted his fault. Sh. Sunil Dutt, G-card of M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services has mentioned that he never met the proprietor of M/s P. S. Traders. Patiala on whose behalf he had filed the import documents. Further Sh Sunil Dutt is not appearing before Customs despite Summon being sent on 12.08.2021, 28.08.2021, 31.08.2021 & 11.09.2021 In this regard a complaint under Section 174-175 of Indian Penal Code. 1860 has been lodged before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ludhiana,
(e) He was duty bound to confirm the KYC of importer before filing the import documents and examination of consignment and payment of Customs duty before clearance of the consignment. The said consignment was managed to clear from Customs without examination on 09.04 202 whereas the M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services was responsible to get the consignment examined for which documents were filed by him. M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services has failed in his duties by submitting. signing false declaration or documents to Customs in the transaction of his business as a Customs broker &authorized representative of the importer.
(f) It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. Sunil Dutt, G-card of M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services in his statement dated 15.04.2021 tendered by him before the CGST official, has stated that he had already deleted the communication of whatsapp chat which was crucial evidence in the case and hence, cannot be trusted in any manner. It appears that he in connivance with other accused managed to illegally clear the consignment having Cigarettes and later on deleted all the whatsapp chat/ call records with their crime partners.
(g) In the instant case, Sunil Dutt did not persuade the importer to deposit Customs duty and examination of consignment. Also, warehouse file for issuance of Gate pass was. prepared by him, however he did not come forward to get issuance of gate pass. Though, he was responsible to get the consignment examined, examination of the said import consignment was not conducted. Hence, M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services has not performed his duty with due diligence and with utmost efficiency and has not fulfilled the obligations of Custom Broker as envisaged in Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 and have not discharged his duties as a Customs Broker.
3.2 As mandated by Regulation 10(n) the CBLR, 2018, the Customs Broker was duty bound to confirm the KYC of the importer before filing the import documents, which the Customs Broker and his employee G-Card holder Sh. Sunil Dutt failed to do. The Customs Broker consciously owned the deeds and acts done by his employee G card Holder Sh. Sunil Dutt by way of furnishing a bond dated 14.05.2018
3.3 Moreover, the Board vide Circular No. 09/2010-Customs dated 08.04.2010 has specifically prescribed “Know Your Customer (KYC) guidelines to the CBS/CHAS so that the CBS/CHAS are not (mis)used Intentionally or unintentionally by importers/exporters indulging in fraudulent activities and with a view to control offences involving various modus operandi such as misuse of export promotion schemes, fraudulent availment of export incentives and duty evasion by bogus IEC holders, etc. In this regard, a detailed guideline on the list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client/customer was also provided. Here, it appears that the CB failed to exercise due diligence and grossly violated the KYC guidelines of the said Circular dated 08.04.2010 read with the provisions of the CBLR, 2018. As per the mandate of the Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 read with the Circular No. 09/2010-Customs dated 08.04.2010, it was incumbent upon the CB to verify identity and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information which apparently the CB have failed to do.
3.4 M/s Safe Cargo Clearing Services holding CB License number 12/CB/REG/LDH/2015 have failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10 of CBLR 2018 and are therefore liable for action under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 and 18 of CBLR, 2018, including revocation of license, forfeiture of part or whole of security & imposition of penalty Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Regulations 16 (1) of CBLR, 2018, suspended the Customs Broker License No. 12/CB/REG/LDH/2015 vide Order issued under F.No. VIII- 13(15) Tech/ CHA/SCCS/HQRS/LDH/2015 dated 08.09.2021 (DIN 20210975NK000000C3B9) issued to Safe Cargo Clearing Services, and ordered to submit the License along with F/G/H Cards (in original) to the Deputy Commissioner (TECH), Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana immediately. The suspension of CHA licence was continued vide order in original dated 15.11.2021 by the Commissioner, Customs, Ludhiana and later the license of the Custom Broker M/s. Safe Cargo Clearing Services 52, Rasila Nagar, opposite BBMB Power House, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana was revoked and penalty of Rs. 50000/- has been imposed vide Order-In-Original number Comm/VG/LDH/CUSTOMS/05/2022 dated 28.06.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order revoking the CHA licence and forfeiting security amount and imposing the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- are not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and custom broker regulation, 2018. He further submitted that the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner Sandeep Kamboj is in violation of regulation 17(4) of CBLR, 2018 as the appellant has not been given the opportunity to cross examine certain persons whose statements was relied upon by the department. He further submitted that the reasons for denial of cross examination is also not legally sustainable.
6. He further submits that the documents relied upon by the inquiry officer were not supplied to the appellant in spite of their request thereby entire inquiry is vitiated and cannot be relied upon for inflicting any punishment on them. He further submits that the custom broker filed bill of entry no. 347461 dated 08.04.2021 on the basis of documents supplied by the importer Ms. P.S. Traders after complying with KYC norms. He also submits that the impugned goods were not presented for examination because the custom duty was not paid and the goods were clandestinely removed without issuing custom out of charge order. He further submits that the custom broker was not involved in clandestine removal of the goods from the port with the connivance of custom officers.
7. He further submits that prima facie facts of the case shows that impugned goods were removed clandestinely with the connivance of custom officers for which custom broker cannot be punished.
8. Ld. Counsel took us through to the report of the inquiry officer and pointed out that there are contradictions in the same. He further submits that the show cause notice issued to the appellant is defective one, as it has been issued without bringing on records, statement of custom officers, custodian, CGST officers etc. Hence, the same is bad in law. He further submits that the inquiry officer has not given any finding regarding issuance of notice beyond the period of limitation.
9. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:
* Trade Wings Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2019 (370) ELT 510 (T).
* Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
10. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the custom broker has failed to comply with the regulations as prescribed in regulation 10 of CBLR. He further submitted that Sunil Dutt, G-card holder of the appellant was responsible to get the consignment examined, but examination of the consignment was not conducted and he was aware that consignment was cleared without examination and payment of custom duties but he did not inform the custom department of the same. Hence, he has not performed his duty with due diligence and utmost efficiency and has not fulfilled the obligations of custom broker as envisaged in regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018. He further submits that the inquiry officer recorded the statement of Abdesh Kumar F-card holder of the custom broker and Sunil Dutt G-card holder of custom broker dated 12.04.2021 wherein they have admitted that they had not obtained any KYC documents from the actual importer i.e. PS traders. Further, Sunil Dutt admitted all the documents including the KYC were provided to him by Sandeep Kumar, inspector customs and he never contacted the actual importer during and after the clearance of the consignment which is in violation of regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.
11. Ld. DR further submits that the custom broker consciously owned deeds and acts done by his employees i.e. G-card holder, Sunil Dutt by way of furnishing a bond dated 14.05.2018.
12. Ld. DR further submits that cross examination was denied because no cogent reasons were given for seeking cross examination at the belated stage. She further submitted that revocation of licence and imposition of penalty has been imposed by the adjudicating authority after following the procedure laid down under regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018.
13. Ld. DR in support of her submission has relied upon the following decisions:-
- Swastic Cargo Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi of CESTAT 2023(2) TMI 677 dated 16.02.2023.
- Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M Ganatra & Co. reported in 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC) dated 14.01.2016.
- M/s Meenu Rathore Vs. CCE, Ludhiana in Final Order no. 60126/2023 dated 11.05.2023.
- M/s Falcon India (Customs Broker) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vide order dated 21.03.2023.
14. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record and the judgments relied upon by both the parties. Here it will be relevant to reproduce the provisions of the regulations CBLR 18 which are as under:
“Obligations of Customs Broker.- A Customs Broker shall-
(a) obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be.
(b) transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an authorized employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be
(c) not represent a client in any matter to which the Customs Broker, as a former employee of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs gave personal consideration, or as to the facts of which he gained knowledge while in Government service;
(d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of noncompliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;
(e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage.
(f) not withhold information contained in any order, instruction or public notice relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Customs authorities, as the case may be, from a client who is entitled to such information
(g) promptly pay over to the Government, when due sums received for payment of any duty, tax or other debt or obligations owing to the Government and promptly account to his client for funds received for him from the Government or received from him in excess of Governmental or other charges payable in respect of cargo baggage on behalf of the client;
(h) not procure or attempt to procure directly or indirectly, information from the Government records or other Government sources of any kind to which access is not granted by the proper officer
(i) not attempt to influence the conduct of any official of the Customs Station in any matter pending before such official or his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation, duress or the offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or other thing of value.
(j) not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole or any part of any book, paper or other record, relating to his transactions as a Customs Broker which is sought or may be sought by the Prinopal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;
(k) maintain up to date records such as bill of entry, shipping bill, transhipment application etc all correspondence, other papers relating to his business as Customs Broker and accounts including financial transactions in an orderly and itemised manner as may be specified by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs as the case may be.
(i) immediately report the loss of license granted to him to the Principal Commissioner of Customs Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be.
(m) discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay
(n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable independent, authentic documents data or information,
(0) inform any change of postal address, telephone number, e-mail etc to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, of all Customs Stations including the concerned Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of the Commissionerate who has granted the license immediately within two days;
(p) maintain all records and accounts that are required to be maintained under these regulations and preserve for at least five years and all such records and accounts shall be made available at any time for the inspection of officers authorized for this purpose; and
(q) co-operate with the Customs authorities and shall join investigation promptly in the event of an inquiry against them or their employees.
14. Further in order to appreciate the role and the position of CHA the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs K.M. Ganatra & Co. reported in 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC) and placed on the reliance of Noble Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [ 2002 (142) ELT 84 (Tri.- Mumbai] wherein a Division Bench of the CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has observed :
“The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The Importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/ exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations fists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations….” We approve the aforesaid observations of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai and unhesitatingly hold that this misconduct has to be seriously viewed.”
“29. Similarly, the view taken by the High Court of Madras, in Sri Kamakshi Agency Vs Commissioner of Customs, Madras -2001 (129) ELT 29 it has been held that:
“the grant of licence to act as a Custom House Agent has got a definite purpose and intent. On a reading of the Regulations relating to the grant of licence to act as Custom House Agent, it is seen that while Custom House Agent should be in a position to act as agent for the transaction of any business relating to the entry or departure of conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station, he should also ensure that he does not act as an agent for carrying on certain illegal activities of any of the persons, who avail his services as Custom House Agent. In such circumstances, the person playing the role of Custom House Agent has got greater responsibility. The very prescription that one should be conversant with various procedures, including the offences under the Customs Act to act as a Custom House Agent would show that, while acting as Custom House Agent, he should not be a cause for violation of those provisions. A CHA cannot be permitted to misuse his position as a CHA by taking advantage of the access to the department. The grant of licence to a person to act as Custom House Agent is to some extent to assist the department with the various procedures such as scrutinising the various documents to be presented in the course of transaction of business for entry and exit of conveyance or the import or export of the goods. In such circumstances, great confidence is reposed in a Custom House Agent. Any misuse of such position by the Custom House Agent will have far reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Custom House officials.”
30. The recent decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Falcon India (Customs Broker) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Airport and General) New Delhi in Customs Appeal No. 50934 of 2021 dated 21.03.2022, it has been observed:
“33. The above decisions lay down that the Customs Broker (or Custom House Agent) is a very important person in the transactions in the Custom House and it is appointed as an accredited broker as per the Regulations and is expected to discharge all its responsibilities under them, Violations even without intent are sufficient to take action against the appellant. While it is true, as has been decided in a number of cases, that the Customs Broker is not expected to do the impossible and is not expected to physically verify the premises of the importer or doubt the documents issued by various Governmental authorities for KYC, it is equally true that the Customs Broker is expected to act with great sense of responsibility and take care of the interests of both the client and the Revenue. It is expected to advise the dient to follow the laws and if the client is not complying, it is obligated under the Regulations to report to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Fulfilling such obligations is a necessary condition for the CB licence and it cannot be termed as ‘spying for the department’ as argued by the appellant before us. It has also been argued that If it sples for the department, it will lose its business. It is evident from the facts of this case, that the appellant was not only aware of the benami Bills of Entry but has actually filed them with the full knowledge that they were benami and they were filed by Anil after a case of undervaluation has been booked by DRI against him. It is afraid of losing business because it has built its business model on violators who, it does not want to upset by reporting to the department. Therefore, we find no reason to show any leniency towards the appellant. At any rate, once violation is noticed, it is not for the Tribunal to Interfere with the punishment meted out by the disciplinary authority, viz., the Commissioner unless it shocks our conscience. In this case, it does not.”
15. Further, we find that in the present case Sunil Dutt G-card holder in connivance with other accused managed to illegally cleared the consignment having cigarette and later deleted all the whatsapp chat/call records in connivance with their crime partners.
16. Further, we find that Sunil Dutt has categorically admitted in his statement that he has not obtained any KYC documents from the actual importer and all the documents including the KYC were given to him by Sandeep Kumar inspector and he has never contacted and met the actual importer at any point of time. Thereby, he has violated the regulation 10(n) which prescribed that the custom broker has to verify correctness of the importer exporter code (IEC) number, goods and services tax identification number (GSTIN), identify of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The appellant had failed to verify the correctness of IEC, identity and whereabouts of the firms with authentic data and information thereby violating the obligations cast upon it under Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018.
17. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Ganatra & Co. has laid down that CHA is very important person in the transaction in the custom house and he is appointed as an accredited broker as per the Regulation and is expected to discharge all its responsibilities under them. Violations even without intent are sufficient to take action against the appellant. While it is true, as has been decided in a number of cases, that the customs broker is not expected to do the impossible and is not expected to physically verify the premises of the importer or doubt the documents issued by the government authorities for KYC, it is equally true that the customs broker expected to act with great sense of responsibility and take care of the interests of both the client and the Revenue. He is expected to advise the client to follow the laws and if the client is not complying, it is obligated under the Regulations to report to the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. Fulfilling such obligations is a necessary condition for the custom broker licence and it cannot be termed as spying for the department as argued by the counsel for the appellant.
18. It has been argued that if it spies for the department, it will not lose its business. From the evidence on record, it appears that the custom broker was having the knowledge that container does not contain the scrap but something else. It is also fact that Sunil Dutt informed the CGST team after the goods were cleared and thereafter the CGST department seized the goods when the same was in transit. Therefore, there is no doubt he has helped the Custom Department to confiscate the illegal smuggled items which was cleared without payment of duty and without examination.
19. Further, we find that there is no doubt that the appellant has not performed his duty with due diligence and utmost efficiency and has connived with Sandeep Kumar inspector and Rambir Superintendent in illegally clearing the consignment having cigarette and later on deleted all the whatsapp chats/call records with their crime partners which clearly shows that he has not fulfilled the obligation under regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 but his act and conduct does not warrant the imposition of extreme penalty of revocation of custom broker licence depriving him of his livelihood. But certainly his conduct warrants, the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit.
20. In view of our discussion above, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that revocation of custom broker licence of the appellant is not warranted and we set aside the revocation. As far as the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit are concerned, we are of the opinion that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and forfeiture of security are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
21. In result, we set aside the revocation and confirm the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposits.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 03.10.2023)
Author Bio
