CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Customs Appeal No. 40775 of 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 02/2025 dated 25.04.2025 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001)

M/s. Kripa Absa Jus Cargo Handling Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant D-52A, UGF, Vishkarma Colony, MB Road, Delhi – 110 044.

Versus Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Tiruchirappalli Commissionerate, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. K. Bindusaran, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Rajini Menon, Authorised Representative CORAM:

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

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

FINAL ORDER No. 40024 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 08.01.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Kripa Absa Jus Cargo Handling Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant/Customs Broker), against Order- in-Original No. 02/2025 dated 25.04.2025 (‘impugned order’ for short) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Tiruchirappalli.

1.2 The proceedings arose from intelligence received by SIIB, JNCH, Mumbai, relating to an attempted import by M/s. Petrolube Industry, wherein undeclared Arecanut/Betel Nut was found concealed behind Bitumen drums. The consignment was intercepted at Nhava Sheva, before transhipment to ICD Tughlakabad.

1.3 Based on the said incident, action was initiated against the Appellant and a Show Cause Notice No 05/2024 (F. No. GEN/CB/ACTN/47/2024-POL) dated 25.10.2024 was issued to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Inquiry Report dated

29.01.2025, concluded that: -

a. The Appellant had obtained and verified all prescribed KYC documents, b. Reasonable due diligence had been exercised, c. There was no violation of Regulation 10(e) or 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.

1.4 Notwithstanding the favourable findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Tiruchirappalli, vide Order-in-Original No. 02/2025 dated 25.04.2025, disagreed with the Inquiry Report and held that the Appellant had failed to discharge obligations under Regulation 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority revoked the Customs Broker Licence under Regulation 17(7), ordered forfeiture of the entire security deposit of ₹5,00,000/- under Regulation 14, and imposed a penalty of ₹50,000/- under Regulation

18(1) of CBLR, 2018.

2. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

3. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Bindusaran, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and advanced detailed submissions in support of the Appeal and the Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Rajni Menon, appeared for the Revenue and defended the Impugned Order.

4. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Bindusaran for the Appellant made the following submissions which are summarised as below: -

4.1 They had fully complied with KYC requirements prescribed under Regulation 10(n) by obtaining and verifying: -

i. IEC issued by DGFT ii. GST Registration Certificate iii. PAN and Aadhaar of the proprietor iv. Cancelled cheque, bank statements and AD Code v. Lease deed for office premises

4.2 It was submitted that verification letters were sent by Speed Post, duly delivered at the declared address, and the importer had personally visited the Appellant’s office on multiple occasions.

4.3 The Appellant contended that: -

a. no Bill of Entry was filed by them for the impugned consignment;

b. the goods were intercepted at the gateway port itself;

c. the alleged smuggling act occurred outside the scope of the Appellant’s assignment, which would have commenced only after transhipment to ICD Tughlakabad.

4.4 It was further argued that the Inquiry Officer, after detailed examination, exonerated the Appellant, holding that reasonable due diligence was exercised and that there was no violati