Ravi Dhanwariya Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that regulation 10(n) doesn’t mandate Customs Broker to verify correctness of certificate or registration issued by other concerned government officer. Thus, revocation of customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit are set aside.
Facts- M/s. Ravi Dhanwariya, New Delhi, is a proprietorship firm licensed as a Customs Broker under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations. On 28.10.2021 and 29.10.2021, the appellant filed six shipping bills on behalf of M/s Sharp Enterprises to export goods.
Receiving intelligence that the goods were highly overvalued in order to claim ineligible export benefits, investigations were initiated by the customs officers of the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of the Inland Container Depot(ICD), Tughlakabad. After completing the investigation, an SCN dated 30.5.2022 was issued by the Joint Commissioner, ICD, Tughlakabad, to the exporter and also to the appellant. The appellant’s license was suspended on 4.7.2022, and the suspension was confirmed on 26.7.2022.
After considering the report of the inquiry officer and submissions of the appellant, the Commissioner passed Order dated 19.01.2023, revoking the license of the appellant, forfeiting its security deposit and imposing a penalty ₹50,000/. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal.
Conclusion- Regulation 10(n) does not place an obligation on the Customs Broker to oversee and ensure the correctness of the actions by the Government officers. Therefore, the verification of documents part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker is fully satisfied as long as the Customs Broker satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were, indeed issued by the concerned officers. This can be done through online verification, comparing with the original documents, etc. and does not require an investigation into the documents by the Customs Broker.
