Getz Transport Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
The appeal concerns the prohibition order issued against a Customs Broker under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013, preventing it from operating in Mumbai Customs Zones I, II and III. The appellant held a Customs Broker licence issued in Chennai and extended operations to Mumbai under a registration valid until 21.03.2024. Mumbai Customs examined ten Bills of Entry and found irregularities in the description, quantity, and valuation of imported goods. Based on these findings, the appellant was first temporarily prohibited on 02.02.2015 and subsequently placed under a continuing prohibition order dated 26.02.2015 for alleged violations of Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(k), 11(m), and 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013. Following this, Chennai Customs suspended the appellant’s licence, which was later confirmed. The appellant challenged both the prohibition order before CESTAT Mumbai and the suspension before CESTAT Chennai.
During parallel proceedings, the Madras High Court quashed the show cause notice issued under Regulation 20 on the grounds of limitation. As a result, CESTAT Chennai restored the appellant’s licence. Before CESTAT Mumbai, the appellant argued that since the enquiry proceedings under Regulation 20 had been quashed, the prohibition order—which was issued only as an interim measure pending such enquiry—could not survive. The appellant relied on the High Court’s order to contend that the prohibition was no longer sustainable.
