2025 (6) TMI 1365 - AT - Customs

Revocation of suspension of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - goods weighed 28230 kilograms as against the declared quantity of 9880 kilograms by the importer - whether Customs Broker fulfilled their obligations under the CBLR 2013 and if not whether the disciplinary action taken against them was legally sound? - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Parma Nanda Vs. State of Haryana and others 1989 (3) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT held that the Tribunal could exercise only such powers which the civil courts or the High Courts could have exercised by way of judicial review. In Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. 2019 (4) TMI 1838 - SUPREME COURT also the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute their view for that of the administrative authority. Mere disagreement with the decision-making process would not suffice. Based on the judgments above the scope of examining the appeal is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. The Tribunal is not expected to interfere with the original authority s decision unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards or has reached a conclusion without adducing proper proof. Conclusion - The order suffered from fatal procedural irregularities including non-adherence to mandatory timelines and failure to specify charges clearly rendering the order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:

1. Whether the order revoking the suspension of the Customs Broker License was legally and factually tenable, particularly in light of the grounds raised by the revenue challenging the revocation.

2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority was legally correct in revoking the suspension of the license under Regulation 19(2) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 while inquiry and proceedings under Regulation 20 of the same regulations were still pending.

3. Whether the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, and the proceedings under CBLR, 2013 are legally independent and whether the revocation of suspension could be based on penalty imposition under the Customs Act.

4. Whether the order revoking the Customs Broker license and imposing penalty and forfeiture under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013 was legally sustainable, particularly considering procedural compliance with timelines prescribed under CBLR, 2013.

5. Whether procedural irregularities, including delay in completion of inquiry beyond prescribed timelines and failure to specify charges clearly in the show cause notice, vitiated the impugned order.

6. Whether the evidence on record, including bank transaction proofs and allegations of mis-declaration and arm-twisting, sufficiently established misconduct and justified disciplinary action.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Legality and propriety of revocation of suspension of Customs Broker License

The Tribunal examined the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the revocation of suspension. The relevant legal framework includes the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013, particularly Regulations 18, 19, and 20, which govern suspension, revocation, and disciplinary proceedings against Customs Brokers. The Tribunal also referred to judicial precedents emphasizing the limited scope of appellate interference in disciplinary matters, notably the Supreme Court rulings in Shri Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana and State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow. These judgments establish that appellate authorities or tribunals should not substitute their discretion for that of the original authority unless the decision is arbitrary, perverse, or suffers from procedural impropriety.

The Court noted that the Original Authority, a senior Commissioner of Customs, exercised judicial discretion in revoking the suspension, considering evidence and circumstances. The Tribunal found no procedural impropriety or illogical reasoning in the decision. The authority had considered the evidence regarding alleged mis-declaration and payments between the importer and Customs Broker, including bank deposit slips indicating Rs. 2 lakhs transferred to the Broker's account, which contradicted the Broker's denial. The Tribunal held that the Original Authority was best placed to weigh such evidence and exercise discretion accordingly.

The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that the revocation was premature or legally incorrect because proceedings under Regulation 20 were pending. It emphasized that the proceedings under the Customs Act and CBLR are independent, and penalty imposition under the Customs Act does not preclude disciplinary action under CBLR. Hence, the revocation of suspension was upheld as legally tenable.

2. Validity of revocation of Customs Broker license and imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013

The Customs Broker challenged the order revoking its license and imposing penalty and forfeiture. The Broker argued that the proceedings leading to revocation were legally untenable due to procedural irregularities, including failure to adhere to prescribed timelines under CBLR, 2013, and lack of clarity in the show cause notice regarding the specific provisions violated. The Broker also contended that the allegations were based on unverified claims by the importer and that the penalty was disproportionate.

The Tribunal examined the procedural framework under CBLR, 2013, which mandates strict timelines for initiation and completion of inquiry (notably 90 days for inquiry report submission and 180 days for final order). It relied on authoritative judicial pronouncements, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. and the Madras High Court's ruling in Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. These judgments held that the timelines prescribed under CBLR are mandatory, not directory, to ensure swift disciplinary action and prevent undue delay that could undermine enforcement and accountability.

In the present case, the Tribunal found that the inquiry report was furnished beyond 90 days and the final order was passed beyond 180 days from the date of show cause notice issuance. The Original Authority failed to address or justify these delays. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the procedural irregularities vitiated the order of revocation and penalty imposition, rendering it legally unsustainable.

Regarding the substantive allegations, the Tribunal noted that the Broker had produced evidence of duty payment and that the importer's allegations of arm-twisting and mis-declaration were not adequately verified or substantiated. The Tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the party making the allegation. The lack of cogent proof weakened the case against the Broker on merits.

3. Treatment of evidence and competing arguments

The Tribunal carefully considered the documentary evidence, including bank deposit slips showing Rs. 2 lakhs transferred by the importer to the Broker or its sister concern, the discrepancy in declared and actual weight of imported goods, and the Broker's denial of receiving payments for duty clearance. The Original Authority found the Broker's denial unconvincing and inferred involvement in abetment of mis-declaration. However, the Tribunal distinguished between the evidence considered at the suspension stage and the procedural defects in the subsequent revocation proceedings.

The Broker's arguments highlighting the absence of clear charges, failure to put them on notice about specific violations, and reliance on unverified importer statements were accepted by the Tribunal as valid procedural lapses. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the imposition of multiple penalties, including revocation of license, was disproportionate in the circumstances.

4. Scope of appellate interference in disciplinary decisions

The Tribunal reiterated that its jurisdiction is limited to judicial review, ensuring that the decision-making process was fair, logical, and within legal bounds. It cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the Original Authority absent arbitrariness or perversity. This principle was applied to uphold the revocation of suspension but to set aside the license revocation and penalty order due to procedural non-compliance.

Significant holdings and core principles established:

"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse."

"The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made."

"When a time limit is prescribed in Regulations, which empowers action under Regulation 18 by following the procedure in Regulation 20(1), the use of the term 'shall' cannot be termed as 'directory'. Under such circumstances, the rule can only be termed as 'Mandatory'."

"The Original Authority is best suited to arrive at the conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of a particular circumstance that would jeopardize government revenue or the economic security of the nation, keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case."

On the appeal challenging revocation of suspension, the Tribunal concluded that the decision was judicially sound, not arbitrary or perverse, and did not call for interference.

On the appeal challenging revocation of license and penalty imposition, the Tribunal concluded that the order suffered from fatal procedural irregularities, including non-adherence to mandatory timelines and failure to specify charges clearly, rendering the order unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal against revocation of suspension and allowed the Broker's appeal against revocation of license and penalty, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief as permissible by law.