2025-VIL-2119-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 – Revocation of licence – Forfeiture of security deposit – Appellant challenged impugned order passed by Commissioner revoking its Customs Broker licence and directing forfeiture of its security deposit and also imposing penalty – Whether Appellant has violated provisions of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) & 10(n) of the Regulations – HELD – Regulation 10(a) of the Regulations requires Customs Broker to obtain an authorization from each of firms or individuals, by whom, he is for the time being, employed as a Customs Broker. Importer appoints Appellant as its Customs Broker to file Bill of Entry on its behalf and represent it before Customs to complete all documentation formalities upto delivery of import consignment. Regulation 10(d) of the Regulations requires Customs Broker to advise his client to comply with relevant provisions. Nothing in finding of Commissioner establishes that Appellant had not advised importer to comply with provisions or Appellant was aware that importer was violating any provision or Acts. Regulation 10(e) of the Regulations requires Customs Broker to ensure that it provides only correct information to client. There is nothing on record to show that Appellant had provided any incorrect information to importer. Regulation 10(n) of the Regulations requires customs broker to verify identity of his client and functioning of his client at declared address. Appellant had verified existence of importer through KYC documents. Findings in impugned order that Appellant had violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the Regulations is not correct. Impugned order passed by Commissioner is set aside – Appeal allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page