Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Custom Duty

Customs Broker not responsible if client fails to inform authorities post moving to new premises

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 2056
Case Name
Akanksha Global Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Akanksha Global Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)

CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Thus, customs broker cannot be held responsible if client moves to new premises and doesn’t inform authorities.

Facts- The appellant had a Customs Broker licence valid up to 05.06.2024 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi. A communication dated 17.08.2020 was received by the Commissioner from the Joint Director, Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management, New Delhi that DGARM had conducted an analysis of the data of the GST registrants and identified risky exporters who may have been involved in IGST refund frauds. DGARM also identified the Customs Brokers who handled exports of such exporters including the appellant. DGRAM got the existence of some of these exporters verified from field formation and found that they were not existence. Based on the analysis, DGARM wrote to the concerned commissioners including the respondent herein to take action under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 23.12.2020 was issued to the respondent which culminated in the impugned order.

Conclusion- Held that the responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete as discussed in the above paragraph, if the client moves to a new premises and does not inform the authorities or does not get his documents amended, such act or omission of the client cannot be held against the Customs Broker. Thus, the appellant Customs Broker did not fail in discharging its responsibilities under Regulation 10(n). The impugned order is not correct in concluding that the Customs Broker has violated Regulation 10(n) because the exporter was found to not exist during subsequent verification by the officers.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.