Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Pushpanjali Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 55801 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/06/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Pushpanjali Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

In the case of Pushpanjali Logistics vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi), the dispute revolves around the revocation of the appellant, M/s Pushpanjali Logistics’, Customs Broker License by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General), New Delhi. The Commissioner had issued an order on 16.10.2023 under Regulations 14 & 18 read with Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The order included revocation of the Customs Broker License, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on Pushpanjali Logistics.

The genesis of the case lies in the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management’s identification of risky exporters involved in frauds. This identification process led to the scrutiny of certain Customs Brokers, including Pushpanjali Logistics, who handled exports for these identified risky exporters. The specific allegation against Pushpanjali Logistics was that it facilitated exports on behalf of an entity named Arise Enterprises, which was subsequently found to be non-existent upon verification by the authorities. The Commissioner, relying on this finding, concluded that Pushpanjali Logistics had violated Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018.

Regulation 10 of the CBLR, 2018 imposes obligations on Customs Brokers, including advising clients to comply with relevant laws, verifying the correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) and GST Identification Number (GSTIN), and ensuring the identity and functioning of their clients at declared addresses.

The appellant contended that it had fulfilled its obligations under Regulation 10(d) and 10(n). Regarding Regulation 10(d), Pushpanjali Logistics argued that it had no responsibility for the GST registration of its clients and that it cannot be faulted for actions taken by clients without its knowledge. The appellant maintained that it had no reason to doubt the authenticity of documents provided by its client, Arise Enterprises, for customs clearance.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.


Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2024