Silver Line Global Freight Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) (CESTAT Delhi)
The CESTAT, Principal Bench, Delhi examined an appeal filed by a licensed Customs Broker challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi, which had revoked the broker’s licence, forfeited the entire security deposit, and imposed a penalty of ₹50,000. The action was taken on the allegation that the broker violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR), in relation to export consignments filed on behalf of an exporter whose goods were found to be mis-declared.
The Customs Broker had filed shipping bills for export of readymade garments. On examination, Customs officers found discrepancies including mis-declaration of the nature of goods, substantial overvaluation compared to market value, and non-existence of the exporter and its suppliers at their declared addresses. It was also noted that the exporter’s GST registration had been cancelled suo motu with retrospective effect. Based on these findings, proceedings were initiated against the Customs Broker, leading to suspension and eventually revocation of the licence, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty.
The Tribunal examined each alleged violation independently. With respect to Regulation 10(a), which requires a Customs Broker to obtain authorisation from the client, the Tribunal found that the broker had produced an authorisation letter dated prior to the filing of the shipping bills along with KYC documents. The show cause notice merely stated that investigators could not find the authorisation during investigation; it did not state that the broker was asked to produce it and failed to do so. The Tribunal held that failure of officers to locate the authorisation during investigation did not establish that no authorisation existed. Further, since government authorities themselves had issued GST registration to the exporter at the declared address, the broker could not be faulted for acting on the same. Accordingly, violation of Regulation 10(a) was not established.
