TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ked up for scanning by the container scanning Division at Mundra port, which after scanning, red flagged the consignment with remarks "container mismatch". The said consignment was therefore marked for 100% examination and drawl of samples for testing. The examination report however mentioned- "opened and examined one package in the presence of CHA". The case was taken over by National Investigation Agency for investigation which recorded statements of various concerned persons including Shri Amit Bhardwaj proprietor of the appellant firm. On receipt of report from the vigilance department, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for revocation of Custom Broker's (CB) license under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. Pending inquiry proceeding, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla suspended the Broker's license under Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018 vide order dated No. 01/2025 dated 29.07.2025 against which appeal is filed before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant filed miscellaneous application for grant of early hearing which was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2025. During regular hearing, learned Advocate pleaded that the department is already conducting en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne package was opened and examined and the CHA who was present there neither insisted on 100% examination nor did he make arrangements by coordinating with the Port authorities for destuffing jumbo bags from the container for facilitating examination. He stated that the CHA failed to have due diligence before handling the work of the importer by filing the documents with customs as M/s Vyom Fashion were engaged in trading of Textile and Textile articles. The appellant should have been more vigilant as this was the first import consignment of M/s. Vyom Fashion and that too, completely unrelated to their regular trade. Shri Rajiv Gauba, who contacted the appellant portraying himself to be the Accountant of the importing firm, did not produce any authorisation letter yet the appellant without verifying identity of the person, accepted the documents and filed KYC and Customs documents. 3.1 Learned AR relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs V/s. K. M. Ganatra & Co reported at 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC) which makes a reference to the decision of CEGAT West Zone Mumbai in the case of Noble Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2002 (142) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said report, commissioner, Customs Kandla suspended licence of the Customs broker on 29th July, 2025 and thereafter, the said suspension order was confirmed vide impugned order dated 28.08.2025. Thus, there was no delay on the part of Commissioner as the matter was under investigation by National Investigation Agency who after completing investigation, have forwarded their report to CBIC for taking further action. We therefore, are of the view that case laws cited by the appellant are not relevant in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss the argument of the appellant regarding delay of more than 4 years in taking action to suspend the broker's licence. 4.2 Revenue has alleged contravention of Regulation 10(d),10(e),10(f) and 10(n) of the Custom Brokers Licencing Regulations (herein after referred to as CBLR), 2018. For reference, the said provisions are reproduced below:- "Regulation 10(d) Advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the person who was interacting with them on behalf of the importer and handed over KYC documents for processing and filing Bill of entry under the Customs Law. The very fact that M/s Vyom Fashion which were all along trading in Textile articles had suddenly imported a consignment of semi-process Talc stone, should have alerted the appellant to be more vigilant and cautious about genuineness of the importing firm. 4.4 We also find that the container in which consignment had arrived from Iran was scanned which resulted in mismatch and therefore, the said container was marked for 100% examination as per Public Notice No. 01/2018-19 dated 20.04.2018 issued by Mundra Customs. This public notice reads as " The Importers, Exporters, General Trade, Port Terminal Operators, Shipping Lines/Shipping Agents, Container Freight Stations coming under the jurisdiction of Mundra Custom House, Vessel operators/ Non vessel Operating Common Carriers/ Inland Container Depots and all other stakeholders concerned are hereby informed that Mobile Gamma Radiographic Container Scanning Facility and Drive through X-Ray Based Container Scanner Facility is to be launched shortly at Mundra Port and scanning o....