CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 54672 OF 2023 WITH CUSTOMS CROSS NO. 50500 OF 2023 (Arising out of Order in Original No. 03/ZR/Policy/2023 dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-NEW DELHI -

…….APPELLANT AIRPORT AND GENERAL Commissionerate, New Customs House, New Delhi-110037 Vs.

EVERSHINE SHIPPING CUSTOMS C & F …..RESPONDENT B-13, First Floor, Opp. Post Office, Vill-Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Appearance:

Present for the Appellant : Shri M.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative Present for the Respondent: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 50893/2025 DATE OF HEARING/DECISION : 06/06/2025 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

The department has filed this appeal to assail the order dated

19.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) refraining from revoking the Customs Broker licence of the respondent and also refraining from forfeiting the security deposit furnished by the respondent and refraining from imposing any penalty on the respondent.

2. An issue that would arise for consideration is whether the appeal filed by the department would not be maintainable in view of the decision of the Delhi High court in Commissioner of Customs (Airport &

General) versus Transworld Cargo & Travels¹

3. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, submitted that the appeal would be maintainable as the department has no other remedy against for such an order.

4. The Delhi High Court in Transworld Cargo & Travels specifically addressed this issue as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the department against the order passed by the Commissioner revoking the order of suspension. The observations made by the Delhi High Court are as follows:

“6. In the aforesaid context, the Revenue has projected the following question for consideration:

“(i) Whether the Ld. CESTAT is right in law in holding that the right to prefer an appeal under section 129A or 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order passed under Regulations 21 or 23 of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 is available only to a Custom Broker (hereinafter "CB").”

7. In terms of Regulation 21 of the CBLR, 2013, an appeal against the order of the Commissioner is available only to the Custom Broker and not to the Revenue. The question whether an appeal by the Revenue would be maintainable is covered against the Revenue, by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Falcon India: CUSAA No. 278/2018, decided on 10-10-2018/[2019 (368) E.L.T. 35 (Delhi)]. The said decision was also followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. D.S. Cargo Agency: CUSAA No. 233/2019, decided on 21-9-2022. The Court had held that, CBLR was a complete code. Further, the expression "any person aggrieved" as used in Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 would not include Revenue insofar as any order passed by the

1 (2023) 10 Centax 122 (Del.) [10.03.2023]

Commissioner of Customs under the CBLR, 2013 is concerned.

8. We find no reason to differ from the said decisions.

9. In view of the above, the question of law, as projected by the Revenue, is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. Falcon India (supra) and Commissioner of Customs (General) v. D.S. Cargo Agency (supra)”.

5. The Delhi High Court observed that as the 2018 Regulations were a complete code, the expression “any person aggrieved” as used in section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 would not include revenue in so far as the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under the 2013 Regulations is concerned.

6. The same principal would apply for the 2018 Regulations.

7. Thus, in view of the above said