IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Customs Appeal No. 40396 of 2016 And Customs Miscellaneous Application (Cross) No. 41038 of 2016 (Arising out of Order in Original No. 42547 of 2015 dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - VIII, Chennai)

Commissioner of Customs Appellant Chennai VIII Commissionerate (General)

Custom House, 60, Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001.

Vs.

K. Padmanaban Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 37-A, VOC Street Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027.

APPEARANCE:

Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri L. Gokulraj, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon’ble Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO. 40249/2026 Date of Hearing: 25.08.2025 Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 Per M. Ajit Kumar, This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order in Original No.

42547 of 2015 dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - VIII, Chennai (impugned order).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a Customs Broker company having License No. R-328/CHA and Shri K. Padamanaban and P. Vaithisubramanian are the authorized signatories of the Customs Broker. Based on intelligence, SIIB, Mumbai investigated the imports of float glass from China by M/s. Neto International, Mumbai, M/s. Neto Industries, Mumbai and M/s. Chirag Corporation, Bhiwandi. It was found that the goods were cleared for home consumption by grossly under-invoicing the goods and mis- utilization of Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme which has resulted in issue of Show Cause Notices against the importers. The respondent being the Customs Broker for the importers, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2014 was issued to them for revocation of the license granted; forfeiture of security deposit and for imposition of penalty. After due process of law, the Ld. Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent. Aggrieved by the alleged leniency shown in the order, Revenue has filed the present appeal praying for the remand of the matter to the Commissioner for revocation of the Customs Broker License. The respondent has filed cross-objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3. The Ld. Authorized Representative Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared for the appellant-revenue and Ld. Advocate Shri L. Gokulraj appeared for the respondent.

3.1 Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram the Ld. AR for the appellant submitted as follows:-

A. Although the Adjudicating Authority has held that the Customs Broker violated the statutory provisions, the impugned order has ultimately adopted an unduly lenient approach on the following grounds:

(i) the Show Cause Notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued in 2014, nearly five years after detection of the offence; and (ii) the Customs Broker terminated the services of the concerned employee at its Mumbai branch. B. While the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a limitation period for demand of duty, no such limitation exists under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013) for initiating action against a Customs Broker for regulatory violations. Upon receipt of the offence report, the Commissioner is required to issue a Show Cause Notice within 90 days in terms of Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013.

B. In the present case, the Licensing Authority proceeded under Regulations 18 and 20 without invoking Regulation 19 relating to suspension or continuation of suspension of licence. Mere delay in detection or reporting of the offence does not absolve the Customs Broker of liability for the violations committed.

C. Though proceedings under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and proceedings under the CBLR, 2013 are distinct and independent, this cannot justify the imposition of a nominal penalty of ₹50,000 for a grave and established offence.

D. The Authorised Signatory of the Customs Broker, in statements recorded by the Investig