CBLR suspension cannot continue indefinitely when mandatory regulatory timelines are breached.

M/s Unique International, a Customs Broker, appealed against the suspension and continuation of suspension of its licence by the Commissioner of Customs, Noida.

The suspension arose from two warehouse Bills of Entry filed for an importer whose goods were suspected of misdeclaration and overvaluation.

The Broker maintained that it had obtained the importer’s statutory documents, stopped processing the Bills of Entry after being instructed by Customs, and notified the department; it denied collusion and violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR).

The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had found violations of Regulations 10(d), (e), (m) and (n) without discussing supporting evidence or the Broker’s cited authorities, and that the suspension had continued without timely completion of the prescribed proceedings.

Whether the Commissioner’s order suspending and continuing the suspension of the Customs Broker’s licence was sustainable where the alleged breaches of CBLR Regulations 10(d), (e), (m) and (n) were not supported by specific evidence or findings.

Whether the suspension could continue when the prescribed CBLR procedural timelines had not been followed.

Whether the suspension was justified and proportionate in the circumstances, including its impact on the Broker’s livelihood.

Under CBLR 2018, alleged violations of a Customs Broker’s duties under Regulations 10(d), (e), (m) and (n) must be established on the facts and cannot be asserted casually or in general terms; a broker is not ordinarily responsible for independently determining the truth of an importer’s transaction or physically verifying the importer’s premises where it has undertaken the required document-based due diligence.

The Tribunal applied the principle that statutory procedures and timelines must be followed in the manner prescribed, relying on Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

It also relied on authorities including Selected Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd., Kunal Travels (Cargo), Leo Cargo Services and Necko Freight Forwarders Ltd. on the scope of a broker’s duties and the need to adhere to CBLR timelines.

Any sanction must also be proportionate to the established violation and its consequences.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had merely recited the relevant CBLR provisions and concluded that the Broker was guilty, without identifying evidence showing how the Broker had breached them.

The Broker had obtained statutory documents, and the record did not establish knowledge of, or collusion in, the suspected misdeclaration; the Tribunal noted that a Customs Broker is not expected to conduct a physical verification of the importer’s premises.

It further held that suspension cannot be continued indefinitely while the prescribed proceedings remain incomplete, and that the applicable timelines are mandatory.

In assessing the measure’s justification, the Tribunal also considered the effect of suspension on the Broker’s livelihood and found that it had already suffered sufficiently.

It set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.