TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ension was confirmed by Order dated 28.1.2025 passed by the Commissioner [Impugned order] which is assailed before us in this appeal. The operative part of the impugned order is as follows: ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 16(2) of the CBLR, 2018, I confirm the suspension of the Customs Broker Licence No. R-27/DEL/CUS/2018 (PAN No. AAZCS4574R), valid up to 17.8.2028 of M/s. Silverline Global Freight Pvt. Ltd., suspended vide OIO No. 03/VPS/Suspension/Policy/2025 dated 9.1.2025. M/s. Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. is directed to surrender their original Customs Broker License alogn with all the F/G/H cards issued to them immediately. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows: a) The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records. We do not wish to go into the merits of the allegations against the appellant at this stage because the report of the inquiry officer and the order of the Commissioner on the proposal to revoke the licence have yet to be issued. At this stage, we are only considering the limited question as to whether the confirmation of the suspension is justified based on the facts of this case. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no reason for immediate suspension of the appellant's licence was given is not correct. In fact, paragraph 5 of the Suspension Order dated 9.1.2025 clearly gives out the reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch [SIIB] of ICD Tughlakabad, the exporter was also found to be non-existent. 9. The Commissioner, therefore, felt that: a) The appellant had not verified the description of the goods; b) the appellant had not verified the value of the goods; c) The appellant had not verified the existence of the exporter; and d) The appellant had not verified the credentials of the appellant because the GST Registration of the exporter was cancelled suo moto with effect from 7.2.2023. 10. For the above reasons, the Commissioner confirmed the suspension of the Customs Broker licence of the appellant. We note that the SCN proposing revocation of licence has been issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d market enquiries, the goods were found to be of a fraction of the value in the market. We find that the Customs Broker has no authority or responsibility to verify the FOB value of the goods (which is the transaction value decided between the buyer and seller) or check the market value of the goods (i.e., the value at which such goods are sold in Indian market). Therefore, suspension of the appellant's Custom Broker licence on this ground is also not correct. 13. The third reason for confirmation of suspension is that the appellant had not verified the existence of the exporter. Learned counsel for the appellant placed on record KYC documents such as Aadhar, PAN issued by the income tax authorities, IEC issued by the DGFT, a certificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills of Entry filed in December 2023 and wrote to the GST Ludhiana Commissionerate on 3.1.2024 requesting to verify the genuineness of the exporter. On 1.2.2024, the GST Commissionerate replied that the exporter was found to be non-existent and that its registration was concealed suo moto with effect from 7.2.2023. It is only after verification by the GST officers, pursuant to the letter dated 3.1.2024, it appears that the GST Registration was cancelled with effect from 7.2.2023. The impugned order does not say when the GST Registration was cancelled (although it was cancelled effective from 7.2.2023). Until the cancellation, not only the appellant but even the department was operating under the assumption that the appellant existed. 15.....