Address Change Non-Intimation Cannot Justify Customs Broker Licence Revocation: CESTAT Delhi

Pramod Logistics Services Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

Summary: The connected appeals concerned M/s Pramod Logistics Services, a Customs Broker, and arose from Premises Based Audit proceedings undertaken to verify compliance with the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018). The first appeal challenged Order-in-Original No. 106/MK/POLICY/2019 dated 17.10.2019, while the second challenged Order-in-Original No. 47/ZR/POLICY/2024 dated 27.06.2024. In the first proceedings, the declared premises was found occupied by a third party, and the audit recorded allegations concerning operations at other Customs stations, unauthorised signatures and persons, alleged sub-letting, non-production of records, alleged concealment of DRI show cause notices and alleged dealings through mediators. In the second appeal, the appellant was held responsible in relation to excess availment of RoSL by M/s Baba Exports and M/s Krystafab Enterprises.

The appellant contended that changes of address had been intimated to the Policy Section, that the Department had not updated the information, and that the changed address appeared on ICEGATE and in communications and authorisations. It argued that the address issue was a technical lapse and that revocation was disproportionate. It also disputed allegations concerning unauthorised signatures, sub-letting, non-production of documents and the DRI notices, and relied on Kunal Travels (Cargo) to contend that revocation was too harsh for procedural lapses. The Department, on the other hand, maintained that the appellant had operated from unauthorised premises and ports, that signatures and G-Card usage demonstrated serious misconduct, that records were not produced despite requisitions, and that the conduct represented fundamental violations warranting revocation, forfeiture and penalty.