Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi allowed the appeal filed by a Customs Broker against the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs revoking the Customs Broker License and forfeiting the security deposit. The Commissioner had held that the Customs Broker violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
With regard to Regulation 10(d), the Commissioner observed that although the exporter’s authorization letter stated that the Customs Broker had advised compliance with the provisions of the relevant Acts, the letter did not specify the scope or contents of such advice. CESTAT rejected this finding and held that the regulation only required the Customs Broker to advise the client to comply with the law, which had already been stated in the authorization letter. The Tribunal observed that it was not necessary for the authorization letter to describe the detailed nature or scope of the advice given.
Regarding Regulation 10(e), the Commissioner held that the Customs Broker failed to exercise due diligence because the exporter had earlier faced suo moto cancellation of GST registration on 25.04.2023 before obtaining fresh GST registration on 12.06.2023, shortly before the export transaction dated 15.06.2023. The Commissioner also referred to the exporter’s billboard photograph not displaying the GST TIN number. However, CESTAT noted that the Commissioner did not dispute that the exporter possessed a valid GST registration on the date of export. The Tribunal held that once the GST registration was valid on the relevant transaction date, the earlier cancellation became immaterial for determining compliance under Regulation 10(e).
