Order Date – 06 January 2023

Parties: M/s. ICS Cargo Vs Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s. ICS Cargo, was issued a Customs Broker License being valid up to 28.11.2026.
• DRI proceeded based on the information about certain undervalued imports and conducted search at various premises of different importers based in Mumbai and Hyderabad on 12.04.2017. The goods recovered during those search were seized on 22.06.2017.
• Based on the entire investigation including the statements recorded during the investigation, alleged that the IEC of the importer firms were used by the CHA/appellant for clearance of impugned consignments for some monetary consideration on commission basis. It was also alleged that despite being the CHA, appellant was required to verify the IEC used for clearance of imported consignments.
• A show cause notice was issued proposing the revocation of the appellant’s license on the grounds of violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (hereinafter referred as CBLR), 2018.

Issue – 

• Whether the appellant had violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that impugned show cause notice dated 23.05.2019 was issued well within time i.e. within 90 days from the date when Delhi, Commissionerate received the intimation about alleged acts / omissions of Customs Broker.
• It was held that the action under regulation 16 can be taken during the pendency of proceedings initiated under regulation 14 to revoke the license of the Customs Broker.
• The Tribunal held that it clear from the record that the arrangement was never brought to the notice of appellant. Hence, there was nothing with appellant to hide from the department. Mere taking certain documents of importer from a person appearing on behalf of the importer who is otherwise validly existing at the declared address and having valid IEC and GSTIN is highly insufficient to hold that CHA has failed in performing his duties of Customs House Agent deliberately. 
• Thus the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly confirmed the violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 against the appellant.
• Accordingly the appeal is allowed.