Brightline (C&F) Agency Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that regulation 10(n) doesn’t require Customs Broker to keep continuous surveillance on client to ensure that client operates from that address and has not changed his operations. Accordingly, order revoking customs broker license set aside.
Facts- The order-in-original dated 15.06.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi is assailed by M/s Brightline (C&F) Agency as its customs broker licence was revoked, the security deposit of Rs. 75,000/- was forfeited and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on it on the ground that it had violated Regulation 10 (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Notably, the Directorate General of Analytics & Risk Management of the Central Board of Excise & Customs and had analyzed the GST registration data and suspected certain registrants did not actually exist. It also found that some of the suspect registrants exported goods and identified the customs brokers who had handled such exports.
The DGARM passed this information to the concerned Commissioners who had licensed the customs brokers including the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi. The Jurisdictional GST officers were asked by DGARM to verify the bonafides of the registrants. Based on the reports of the field formations it was felt that the customs brokers including the appellant herein had filed shipping bills for export of goods by entities who had not existed and thereby violated Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018.
