SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 622

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
R. Muralidhar, Judicial Member, Rajeev Tandon, Technical Member
Just Logistics – Appellant
Versus
Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata – Respondent
Customs Appeal No.75610 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arijit Chakraborty
For the Respondents: Tariq Suleman

A Customs Broker's obligation under CBLR 2018 to verify a client's identity is satisfied by obtaining reliable KYC documentation; they are not mandated to act as investigative authorities to verify the physical existence of an exporter or the genuineness of every transaction.

Headnote:(A) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Regulation 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) - Revocation of Customs Broker Licence - Verification of client identity - Customs Broker is required to verify identity of client using reliable documents, but is not an inspector to weigh genuineness of each transaction or physically verify premises of every exporter - If documents provided appear prima facie bona fide, broker has met legal requirements - Duty of authorities to verify IEC and GSTIN existence through their own mechanisms. (Paras 17, 21, 22)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Compliance with timelines - Undue delay in disciplinary proceedings and failure to consider submissions of the appellant constitutes arbitrary action. (Paras 9, 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Customs Broker, faced revocation of its licence, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty due to alleged violations of the CBLR, 2018. The department alleged that the exporter was non-existent and the broker had facilitated undervalued exports. The appellant contended that the exporter held valid government-issued IEC and GSTIN numbers and that many other brokers handled the same exporter's business. The enquiry process was delayed significantly.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found the department's case based on assumptions rather than evidence. The exporter was recognized by other government bodies through valid registrations. The Broker was not obligated to physically verify the exporter beyond obtaining KYC, which was duly done. The authorities failed to prove any mala fide intent or deliberate defiance of professional obligations.

Issues: Whether the Customs Broker failed in its obligations under Regulations 10(d), 10(m), and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, and whether the revocation of its licence and subsequent penalties were justified.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs Broker acts as a processing agent and is not mandated to act as an inspector of the genuineness of a transaction or physically visit a client's premises when the client holds valid government-issued identifiers. The determination of an exporter's non-existence must be based on concrete evidence, not mere hearsay or assumptions.

Result: Appeal allowed. The revocation is set aside, and the licence is restored with refund of the security deposit and penalty.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding the alleged violation of cblr regulations and the existence of the exporter. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. procedural fairness and the binding nature of mandated timelines for disciplinary proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. scope of a customs broker's duty to verify client identity and the lack of evidence for the department's assumptions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. judicial precedents emphasizing the limited role of a customs broker and the unjust nature of arbitrary licence revocation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

Per : RAJEEV TANDON :

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No.KOL/CUS/A&A/Pr.COMMISSIONER/CBS/06/2024 dated 21.02.2024 whereby the learned Adjudicating authority has ordered revocation of the Customs Broker’s Licence of the appellant. He has also ordered therein forfeiture of full amount of Security Deposit furnished by the Customs Broker, apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant. The learned Principal Commissioner in his order has found the appellant in violation of the prescriptions of Regulation 10(d), 10(m) and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 and has therefore ordered as above mentioned.

2. The primary charge against the appellant, stems out of the case of export of ‘Human Hair (Unprocessed)’ by an exporter, by name M/s. S.S. Impex by undervaluing the same; the appellant being the Customs Broker in the said matter having processed and facilitated exports under cover of Shipping Bill No.7926810 dated 15.01.2021 which was interdicted by the authorities. Conducting detailed investigations into the matter, the department found that in past also several similar consignments of export of Human Hair by the said exporter were undertaken. In some of these export shipments the present appellant was the nominated Customs Broker on record. Through its investigations the department arrived at the conclusion that the exporter in the present matter was not traceable and therefore non-existent. They have thus inter alia also held out the Customs Broker to be the Exporter, in the matter.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant, has submitted that it would be a fallacy to claim that the exporter was non-existent. He submits that the DGFT authorities have issued to the exporter a valid IEC No.BOCPB2356H (to which upon query from the Bench, the Ld.Counsel submits that it was still operative). He adds that it was not a case of present appellant being the sole Customs Broker, facilitating the shipments for the said exporter. He placed on record a list of 184 shipments (as below) in respect of the said goods, as were exported by the said exporter, where services of some other Customs Brokers were availed of by the exporter M/s.SS Impex.

EXPORT OF HUMAN HAIR UNDER HSN CODE 0501 BY M/s. S.S. IMPEX [IEC NO.BOCPB2356H] THROUGH OTHER CBs

SL. NO.S/B NO.S/B DATE
1194878111.02.2019
2194878911.02.2019
3203280814.02.2019
4203337814.02.2019
5210485618.02.2019
6213475019.02.2019
7231709426.02.2019
8231709626.02.2019
9249868105.03.2019
10303579027.03.2019
11303595727.03.2019
12303597227.03.2019
13329952405.04.2019
14329952504.05.2019
15329953005.04.2019
16329953104.05.2019
17334440108.04.2019
18334611908.04.2019
19334621108.04.2019
20334621408.04.2019
21337275809.04.2019
22337290809.04.2019
23337291009.04.2019
24342472011.04.2019
25346822413.04.2019
26346822913.04.2019
27352028416.04.2019
28352887716.04.2019
29352889916.04.2019
30353112216.04.2019
31361559120.04.2019
32368062323.04.2019
33368063023.04.2019
34368106523.04.2019
35368106623.04.2019
36372282425.04.2019
37372283625.04.2019
38372312725.04.2019
39380809929.04.2019
40381294229.04.2019
41392303003.05.2019
42392334003.05.2019
43394499704.05.2019
44394499904.05.2019
45401930208.05.2019
46401930408.05.2019
47401930608.05.2019
48401947708.05.2019
49410183711.05.2019
50410191211.05.2019
51413745613.05.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top