Customs broker verification duty under Regulation 10(n) is limited to authentic documents; no continuous surveillance required.

Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires a Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IEC and GSTIN, the client's identity, and the functioning of the client at the declared address through reliable, independent and authentic material. It does not require the broker to whether government-issued registrations were correctly granted, nor does it impose a duty of physical inspection or continuous surveillance at the client's premises. On the stated facts, the broker was found not to have breached this verification obligation because the documents were issued by government authorities and there was no proof they were forged or invalid; accordingly, revocation, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by failing to verify the correctness of IEC, GSTIN, identity of the client and functioning at the declared address; (ii) Whether revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 by failing to verify the correctness of IEC, GSTIN, identity of the client and functioning at the declared address.

Analysis: Regulation 10(n) obliges a 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 through reliable, independent and authentic documents, data or information. The obligation is limited to satisfying itself that the IEC and GSTIN were issued by the competent authorities and that the client's identity and address can be established through credible material. It does not require the Customs Broker to investigate whether government officers correctly issued those registrations, nor does it impose a duty of physical inspection or continuous surveillance at the client's premises. The documents relied upon were issued by government authorities and there was no evidence that they were forged or invalid. The subsequent verification reports only indicated that certain exporters were found non-existent at the time of verification and did not establish that they were non-existent at the time of export or that the appellant had failed in the prescribed verification exercise.

Conclusion: The appellant did not violate Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Issue (ii): Whether revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Since the foundational allegation of breach of Regulation 10(n) was not established, the consequential penal and coercive measures could not be sustained. The findings in the impugned order were based on later verification of exporters and did not justify the conclusion that the appellant had failed in its statutory obligations.

Conclusion: The revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs Broker satisfies Regulation 10(n) by verifying IEC, GSTIN, identity and declared address through reliable, independent and authentic material; the regulation does not impose a duty to scrutinise the correctness of government-issued registrations or to maintain continuous physical surveillance of the client.

---