CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH-COURT NO. 1 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51134 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order in Original No. 82/ZR/Policy/2023 dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Airport &

General), New Delhi]

M/S GLOBAL LINKS …..APPELLANT B-36, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 Vs.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF …..RESPONDENT CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL)-NEW DELHI 110037 Appearance:

Shri Prabhat Kumar and Shri Karan Kanwal, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Girijesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. P.V.SUBBA RAO, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL )

FINAL ORDER NO. 50058 /2026 DATE OF HEARING : 17/10/2025 DATE OF DECISION : 14/01/2026 P.V. SUBBA RAO

1. M/s Global Links, New Delhi¹ filed this appeal to assail the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner (Airport & General) revoking its customs broker licence and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and forfeiting the entire amount of security deposit under Regulations 14 and 18 read with Regulations 17(7) of the Customs Broker Licencing

1 Appellant

Regulations, 2018² by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi. The appellant is Customs Broker licensed under CBLR by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi. It could file Bills of Entry and Shipping Bills through any port or airport in the country as per the CBLR. On 23.1.2023, the appellant filed three Bills of Entry at Mumbai port bearing no. 4324995 and 4325182 on behalf of M/s Dreams Inc., and Bill of Entry No. 4325118 on behalf of M/s Aahanna Associates. On the basis of intelligence, the Central Intelligence Unit at Mumbai put the consignments on hold and subjected them to 100% examination. Examinations revealed that the description, quantity and value of the goods were mis-declared. Further, the consignment contained undeclared items. There was also violation of Bureau of Indian Standards³ Certification requirement and contravention of RE-44 Notification with respect to the packing material of the goods and there were also violation of Legal Metrology Provisions. The matter was investigated and action was initiated against the importers and the appellant herein as the Customs Broker and penalties were also imposed on the employees of the appellant under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962⁴

2. Reports of these detections were received from Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi. Based on these Offence Reports dated 20.02.2023, the appellant’s Customs Broker licence was suspended by order dated

2 CBLR

3 BIS

4 Act

13.03.2023 and the suspension was confirmed by order dated 09.05.2023. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 16.06.2023 was issued to the appellant proposing to revoke its Customs Broker’s licence, to impose penalty and to forfeit the security deposit for alleged violation of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(m) and 13(12) of CBLR. Inquiry officer was appointed in terms of Regulation 17(4). The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 08.08.2023, a copy of which was provided to the appellant. After considering the submissions made by the appellant in defence, the Commissioner, by the impugned order, revoked the appellant’s Customs Broker licence, imposed penalty and forfeited the security deposit. Aggrieved, this appeal is filed by the appellant.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department and perused the records.

4. The short questions to be answered are whether, based on the available evidence on record, it can be said that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(m) and 13(12) of CBLR and if so, whether the penalty imposed on the appellant is proportionate to the violations. These regulations read as follows:

“10. Obligations of Customs Broker.— A Customs Broker shall —

(d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts a