Customs broker verification duties under CBLR turn on reasonable document-based checks, not physical meeting of the exporter.

A customs broker's obligations under CBLR 2018 Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) are assessed on the basis of the documents and information reasonably available to the broker. The text states that, where alleged misdeclaration in export value and classification is detected from cargo examination rather than from patent defects in the broker's papers, a broker acting on exporter-supplied documents is not shown to have breached the duty to advise compliance or exercise due diligence. It also states that Regulation 10(n) requires verification of IEC, GSTIN, identity and address through reliable documentary material, but does not require physical meeting of the exporter. In the absence of proof of active participation or deficient reasonable verification, revocation, forfeiture and penalty are not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge under Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable on the allegation that the customs broker failed to advise the client to comply with law and report non-compliance. (ii) Whether the charge under Regulation 10(e) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable on the ground that the customs broker failed to exercise due diligence in relation to export documents. (iii) Whether the charge under Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable on the ground that the customs broker did not physically meet the exporter and allegedly failed to verify IEC, GSTIN, identity and address.

Issue (i): Whether the charge under Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable on the allegation that the customs broker failed to advise the client to comply with law and report non-compliance.

Analysis: The charge was based on the allegation that the exported goods were misdeclared in value and classification for wrongful IGST benefit. The customs broker's role was confined to processing documents supplied by the exporter, and no specific act showing active assistance in the alleged misdeclaration was identified. The finding against the broker rested largely on the inquiry report without independent reasoning establishing how the obligation under Regulation 10(d) was breached.

Conclusion: The charge under Regulation 10(d) was not sustained and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge under Regulation 10(e) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable on the ground that the customs broker failed to exercise due diligence in relation to export documents.

Analysis: The alleged violation was again linked to overvaluation and misclassification detected from examination of cargo, not from any patent defect in the documents handled by the broker. A customs broker acting on documents supplied by the exporter cannot be expected to detect such concealment without physical examination of goods. On those facts, the alleged lack of due diligence under Regulation 10(e) was not established.

Conclusion: The charge under Regulation 10(e) was not sustained and was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the charge under Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable on the ground that the customs broker did not physically meet the exporter and allegedly failed to verify IEC, GSTIN, identity and address.

Analysis: The obligation under Regulation 10(n) is to verify the authenticity of the client's IEC, GSTIN, identity and functioning through reliable, independent and authentic documents or information. The broker had obtained KYC material such as bank-signed authorization, IEC certificate and GST certificate. Physical meeting of the exporter is not a statutory requirement, and the broker is not expected to investigate the correctness of government-issued documents beyond reasonable verification. Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 supports the presumption of genuineness of official documents.

Conclusion: The charge under Regulation 10(n) was not sustained and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: Since the sustained charges could not be upheld on the evidence and the regulatory obligations were not breached in the manner alleged, the revocation, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs broker's obligations under Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) are to be tested on the basis of the documents and information reasonably available to the broker; absent specific evidence of active participation in misdeclaration or failure of reasonable document-based verification, penal consequences and revocation cannot be sustained.

---