2025-VIL-652-KER-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-652-KER-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs - Customs Broker License, Revocation, Diplomatic Cargo, Mis-declaration – Appellant filed Bills of Entry for clearing certain consignments as Diplomatic cargo. However, upon inspection, it was found that the consignors were mis-declared as the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abu Dhabi" instead of the actual private individuals - Commissioner of Customs issued Show Cause Notice to the appellant for revocation of its Customs broker license and imposition of penalty for violation of various obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) - Whether the adjudicating authority erred in not extending an opportunity for cross-examination of Customs officers under Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR – HELD - The appellant did not initially request for cross-examination and the Customs Officers and staff who cleared the consignment as diplomatic cargo did not have any relevant role in the alleged breach of obligations by the appellant. The request for cross-examination was only a delay tactic. Since the appellant was given an opportunity to file representations against the inquiry report, there was no violation of natural justice - the appellant had violated its obligations under the CBLR by mis-declaring the consignors of the Diplomatic Cargo consignments, thereby facilitating the smuggling of gold. The relationship between a customs broker and the Customs Department is one of trust, and the appellant's actions had eroded that trust, justifying the revocation of its license - the revocation of the appellant's customs broker license is upheld and the appeal is dismissed - Whether the adjudicating authority committed an error by not producing relevant documents to the appellant at the time of issuance of the show cause notice – HELD - The Appellate Tribunal found that as per the Regulations, the appellant was entitled to receive only the documents mentioned in the show cause notice and the inquiry report. Since the appellant received both and was given an opportunity to file representations, there was no violation of natural justice - Whether the adjudicating and appellate authorities committed an error by not adhering to the time frame prescribed under Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR for submission of the inquiry report – HELD - The Appellate Tribunal found that the 90-day period under Regulation 17(5) was directory and not mandatory, especially since the appellant's license was not suspended during the proceedings and he was allowed to continue his operations. The appellant was not prejudiced by the delay in submission of the inquiry report.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST changes in July '25
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?