2025-VIL-1384-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 – Revocation of license – Forfeiture of security deposit – Directorate General of Analytics & Risk Management of Central Board of Excise & Customs had analyzed GST registration data and suspected that certain registrants did not actually exist – Based on reports of field formations, department felt that customs brokers including Appellant had filed shipping bills for export of goods by entities who had not existed and thereby violated Regulation 10(n) of the Regulations – Commissioner revoked customs broker licence of Appellant and forfeited its security deposit – Whether Appellant has violated provisions of Regulation 10(n) of the Regulations – HELD – Show cause notice alleged that Appellant is one of customs brokers who are handled consignments of 89 risky exporters. Out of alleged 89 exporters who did not exist, verification reports were enclosed only for 4 exporters as RUD-1 to RUD-4. There is nothing in show cause notice or in impugned order to show that Appellant had handled exports by exporters mentioned in RUD-1, 2 and 3. As far as exporter in RUD-4 (Lalit Enterprises) is concerned, Appellant had obtained all necessary documents to verify existence of Lalit Enterprises and thereafter processed their exports through customs. It is not necessary for Appellant to physically visit and verify if exporter was operating on its place of business. Responsibility of Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) of the Regulations does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Appellant has not failed in discharging its responsibilities under Regulation 10(n) of the Regulations. Impugned order passed by Commissioner is set aside – Appeal allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page