Customs Broker verification duty under Regulation 10(n) is satisfied by reliable documents, not physical surveillance or checking government issuance.
Regulation 10(n) requires a Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IEC and GSTIN, the client's identity, and the client's functioning at the declared address through reliable, independent and authentic documents or information. It does not require the broker to supervise how Government officers issued those registrations, nor to conduct physical surveillance or continuous investigation. Official certificates and registrations carry a presumption of genuineness, so reliance on authentic documents issued by competent authorities satisfies the obligation unless there is material showing falsity or forgery. Where the alleged breach is not established, revocation of licence and penalty cannot stand, and withholding adverse material also offends natural justice.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 by failing to verify the identity and functioning of its client at the declared address; (ii) Whether revocation of the Customs Broker's licence and imposition of penalty were justified.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 by failing to verify the identity and functioning of its client at the declared address.
Analysis: Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IEC and GSTIN, the identity of the client, and the functioning of the client at the declared address by using reliable, independent and authentic documents, data or information. The obligation does not extend to supervising whether Government officers correctly issued the IEC or GSTIN. Officially issued certificates and registrations are entitled to a presumption of genuineness, and the broker is not required to conduct a physical investigation or continuous surveillance. On the facts, the appellant had obtained and relied upon authentic documents issued by competent authorities, and there was no material to show that those documents were fake or forged.
Conclusion: No violation of Regulation 10(n) was established.
Issue (ii): Whether revocation of the Customs Broker's licence and imposition of penalty were justified.
Analysis: Once the alleged breach of Regulation 10(n) failed, the foundation for revocation of the licence and penalty disappeared. The adverse material relied upon by the department was also not furnished to the appellant, which independently offended the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, the extreme penalty of revocation could not stand.
Conclusion: The revocation and penalty were not justified.
Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.
Ratio Decidendi: A Customs Broker discharges its obligation under Regulation 10(n) when it verifies the client through reliable, independent and authentic documents or information and is not required to ensure the correctness of Government-issued IEC or GSTIN, nor to conduct physical surveillance of the client's premises.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
