The court ruled that penalties against customs brokers must be based on clear evidence of misconduct, not mere assumptions.

PER: C J MATHEW

M/s Shivam Clearing Agency Mumbai Pvt Ltd, holder of customs broker licence no. 11/1044), who had been was proceeded against and in accordance with the powers under regulation 17 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 , only to have their licence revoked and security deposit forfeited while, at the same time, imposed with penalty of ₹ 50,000 under regulation 18 of in order, [order-in-original no. 23/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS-Adj dated 10th July 2024] of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. It would appear that the confirmation of the charges of having breached regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of , with breach of regulation 10(m) held as not proved, on the finding that the appellant herein had facilitated clearance of six, out of 49, shipping bills pertaining to M/s Hasu Impex in which goods were allegedly overvalued to avail ineligible drawback, was held to suffice for all the possible detriments being fastened on them. The licensing authority has rendered finding that ‘6. Discussion and Findings:-

I have gone through the record of the case, offence report dated 15.11.2022, the Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.2023, and Inquiry Report dated 08.03.2024 Oral and written submission of CV dated 05.06.2024 presented during personal hearing.

The Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report dated 08.03.2024 held the charges of violation of Regulation 10(d) & 10(e) of the CBLR , 2018 as ‘proved’ and violation of Regulation 10(m) as ‘Not Proved’.

a. From the offence report, I find that exporter firm M/s. Hasu Impex procured fake purchase bills from one Mr. Suhel Ansari against their export consignments to show the over- pricing of the goods. During the period from 2012-2016 the exporter made total exports of 49 shipping bills and availed total drawback of Rs. 1,23,983/- by way of overvaluation. Out of the said 49 consignments/Shipping Bills of the said exporter, Customs Broker M/s Shivam Clearing Agency (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd had facilitated clearance of 06 consignments/shipping bills.

For brevity, I refrain from reproducing the brief facts of the case in details as the same has already been discussed above. I, now, examine the charges in the SCN sequentially.’

2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had no role in procurement of over-invoiced goods or in over invoicing of the goods and nor in the processing for sanction of drawback based on invoices furnished by the exporter. It was further contended that the entire case against several customs brokers related to sanction of mere ₹1,23,983 as drawback on 49 shipping bills filed between the period from 2012 to 2016 with the appellant themselves allegedly handling six of these consignments. He further submitted that out of the six, four were filed without claim for drawback and the two shipping bills involved claim only of ₹ 24,961 rendering the entire proceedings to have had the outcome of disproportionate detriment.

3. Learned Consultant further submitted that the proceedings were flawed inasmuch the time-lines prescribed in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 had not been complied with and for no fault of the appellant. Furthermore, he submitted that an identical issue had been dealt with by the Tribunal in Palak Logistics Private Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, final order, [final order no. A/85778-85779/2025 dated 7th May 2025] disposing off appeal, [customs appeal no. 86934 & 86935 of 2024] against orders, [no. 08/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS-Adj dated 02nd May 2024] [no. 11/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS-Adj dated 24th May 2024] of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.

4. According to Learned Authorized Representative, the submissions m