CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. III Customs Appeal No.40260 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.42134/2015 dated 20.10.2015 read with corrigendum dated 26.10.2025 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII, 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai - 600

001.)

Commissioner of Customs, ....Appellant Chennai-VIII Commissionerate, Custom House, Chennai-600 001.

Versus M/s. KBS Manian & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent No.2, Jaffer Syrang Lane, Chennai-600 001. APPEARANCE:

Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Authorized Representative for the Appellant None for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No.40025/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 24.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 08.01.2026 Per: Shri P. Dinesha This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original No.42134/2015 dated 20.10.2015 and the corrigendum dated 26.10.2015 issued to the Order-in-Original dated 20.10.2015. Vide Order-in- Original, the Commissioner had ordered revocation of suspension of Customs Broker’s License and forfeiture of the Security Deposit made against the Customs- Broker–Respondent herein. Soon thereafter, it appears that the above order was modified vide Corrigendum dated 26.10.2015 whereby, instead of forfeiture of entire Security Deposit, the Commissioner had ordered a levy of penalty of Rs.50,000/-. Unhappy with the above, the Revenue has preferred this Appeal.

2. We have heard Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Deputy Commissioner for the Appellant-Revenue; none represented the Respondent. We have carefully perused the Grounds of Appeal and the applicable statutory enactment as well. The only issue that arises for our consideration is, “whether the impugned order calls for any interference?”

3. The Grounds of Appeal and the prayer therein indicates that the decision of the Commissioner imposing a penalty of ₹50,000 on the Customs Broker ordered vide corrigendum dated 26.10.2015 is not commensurate with the gravity of offence committed, and thus prays for remanding the case to the file of Commissioner for revoking the license of the Customs Broker as well.

4. At the outset, a perusal of the documents filed by the Revenue indicates that it is not their case that the exercise of description by the Commissioner was improper or illegal; as the Proper Officer, the Commissioner, who was having the documents on record before him and after recording reasons that for more than two years, the Customs Broker was out of service, has taken a plausible lenient view. In our view, the same is also in terms with Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013, particularly Regulation 22(7). A perusal of the impugned order also reveals the application of mind and the reasoning given by the Authority for revoking the suspension order with which, we do not find any issues. CBLR as a governing enactment, has prescribed the threshold limit of penalty that could be imposed on a Customs Broker for any violation to the said Regulations, at Rs. 50,000/-.

5. It is also the settled position of law that by suspending the Customs Broker’s License, which is to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases, not the Custom Broker whose life is thrown out of gears, but even the employees of said Customs Broker would be deprived of their livelihood. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in this regard, in the impugned order. Resultantly, the Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

(Order pronounced in open court on 08.01.2026)

sd/- sd/-

(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

vl