2025 (1) TMI 1381 - AT - Customs

Customs broker license revocation overturned after Department fails to prove facilitation of exports by non-existent entities

M/s Unicorn World Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs Airport & General-New Delhi

M/s Unicorn World Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs Airport & General-New Delhi - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the revocation of the Customs Broker License of the appellant under Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, was justified.Whether the appellant failed to comply with the 'Know Your Customer' (KYC) guidelines as prescribed under CBLR, 2018 and Circular No. 09/2010-Customs.Whether the appellant facilitated exports by non-existent entities for availing export incentives, IGST refunds, or ITC refunds.Whether the appellant's actions constituted a violation of the CBLR, 2018, sufficient to justify the revocation of the license and the imposition of penalties.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The case centers around Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, which requires customs brokers to verify the correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) numbers, Goods and Services Tax Identification Numbers (GSTIN), and the identity and functioning of clients at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data, or information. The 'Know Your Customer' guidelines, as outlined in Circular No. 09/2010-Customs, also play a crucial role in determining compliance.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Tribunal examined whether the appellant had complied with Regulation 10(n) and the KYC guidelines. It noted that the appellant had obtained necessary KYC documents, such as PAN, Aadhar, IEC, and Rent Agreement, which were not found to be fake. The Tribunal emphasized that the regulation does not mandate physical verification of the documents submitted, nor does it specify timelines for obtaining IEC or GSTIN.Key evidence and findings:The Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted all required KYC documents, and there was no evidence of forged documents. The appellant had handled the customs clearance for M/s Darix Enterprises, which was allowed to re-export goods after adjudication and payment of fines. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had relied on previous decisions where similar revocations were set aside due to lack of conclusive evidence.Application of law to facts:The Tribunal applied Regulation 10(n) to the facts and concluded that the appellant had not violated the regulation. The evidence did not demonstrate that the appellant facilitated exports by non-existent entities or that the documents submitted were fraudulent. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the revocation on the appellant's livelihood and that of his employees.Treatment of competing arguments:The Tribunal considered the Department's argument that the appellant failed to verify the genuineness of the GSTN and IEC and was not in touch with the actual IEC holder. However, it found these arguments unconvincing, as the appellant had provided all necessary documents and there was no evidence of fraud. The Tribunal also noted that the Department did not provide evidence to support its claims of non-existent exporters.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the revocation of the Customs Broker License was not justified, as there was no violation of Regulation 10(n) or the KYC guidelines. The appellant had complied with the necessary legal requirements, and the Department failed to provide conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:The Tribunal cited its previous decision in Perfect Cargo: 'The entire case, therefore, is not built on conclusive evidence. We are surprised that the Commissioner found it proper to deprive the appellant and its employees of their livelihood in such a casual and callous manner. The impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside.'Core principles established:The Tribunal reinforced the principle that revocation of a Customs Broker License requires conclusive evidence of violation of regulatory provisions. It emphasized the need for due diligence in exercising powers that affect livelihoods.Final determinations on each issue:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and restoring the Customs Broker License of the appellant. It concluded that there was no violation of Regulation 10(n) or the KYC guidelines, and the Department did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the revocation and penalties imposed.