TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Entry and the goods were subjected to examination by the Officers. 2.1 After physical examination of the imported consignments by the concerned customs group, valuation reports used to be submitted by the government approved valuers engaged in the matter from the panel already constituted. Thereafter, upon due satisfaction recorded by the customs officials, clearance used to be allowed. 2.2 Sometime in the month of April, 2019, a purported intimation was forwarded to the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admin.), Customs House, Kolkata by the Additional Director General, DRI, Kolkata Zonal Unit on the subject of alleged fraudulent imports of worthless stone declared as rough/precious/semi-precious stones through Kolkata Airport Cargo by certain unscrupulous importers. It was stated in the said intimation that certain IEC holders of Surat, Mumbai, Jaipur, Tamil Nadu and New Delhi were importing goods declared as rough/precious stone/blue sapphire, ruby etc. mainly from Hong Kong which were highly over-invoiced and in fact, of much inferior quality. 2.3. Based on the said intelligence, searches had been conducted in the premises of the concerned importers, some of which had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Custom House, Kolkata, wherein it was held that the charges made against the appellant as regards violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR had been established. 2.7 On 11.10.2023 the appellant filed its representation against the aforesaid inquiry report and denied and disputed the findings and recommendations therein. The appellant again highlighted that it had acted strictly within the confines of the CBLR and, having opted for First Check assessment, should not have been penalized in any manner on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated statements recorded during investigations from the purported defaulting government valuers. The appellant further submitted that it had complied with the mandatory KYC requirements and that it had discharged the responsibilities conferred on customs brokers and the proposed cancellation of license was wholly untenable. 2.8 By the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2023, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Custom House, Kolkata, amongst others, revoked the appellant's customs broker license. 2.9 Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers whose statements are relied upon in the show cause notice. However, such request was not acceded to. It was also not clarified as to which statement of a particular government approved valuer had been sought to be relied upon by the Customs Department, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The instant appellant had also requested for an opportunity to cross-examination the concerned deponents and witnesses but such request had been turned down both at the stage of inquiry proceeding and also at the stage of adjudication proceeding, which was in violation of Regulation 17(4) of CBLR. It is also demonstrable from records that the Customs Department sought to straightaway place reliance upon statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 without following the safeguards and mandate of Section 138B thereof. In this behalf, the appellant places reliance on the following decisions: (a) Krishna Shipping and Allied Services v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandala (2024) 22 Centax 352 (Tri. Ahmd.), (b) M/s Shalom Forwarders v. Commissioner of Customs, Turicorin Vide Final Order No.40700/2026 dated 02.06.2026 (Tri. Chennai) ; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and illegal on the part of the authorities concerned to have insisted that the instant appellant should have conducted further independent verification in order to ascertain genuineness of its clients/importers' businesses so as to comply with Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR. 3.6 The appellant submits that they had acted as per law and within the confines of CBLR requirements and should not have been penalized even if any dispute as to the worth or valuation of the imported consignments had arisen later. It is also not the respondent- Department's case that the appellant had partaken in the illegitimate gains of the defaulting importers. The appellant states and reiterates that Regulation 10(a) of CBLR does not require obtaining authorization from the importer directly in all cases, just as Regulation 10(d) does not cast vicarious liability upon a customs broker on account of alleged misdeclaration by the importer concerned. Similarly, Regulation 10(n) of CBLR cannot be construed in a manner so as to require every customs broker to personally visit the importers' place of business and go behind government issued credentials/documents. 3.7 Further, he submits that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or that the appellant had failed to verify the credentials submitted by its clients using reliable means. On a true and proper interpretation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR read with Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962, it could not have been stated that the appellant had been negligent. Even otherwise, an impossible degree of performance or supervision over its clients' activity could not have been insisted upon. In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions: i) M/s Just Logistics 1 v. Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata vide Final Order No.75401/2026 dated 19.03.2026 (Tri. Kolkata) ; ii) M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi vide Final Order No.50650/2026 dated 02.04.2026 (Tri.-Delhi) ; iii) D S Cargo Agency v. Commissioner of Customs vide its judgement in Appeal No.CUSAA2/2022 dated 25.09.2023, iv) M/s Auro Logistix v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs & connected matter vide Final Order No.77514- 77515/2025 dated 26.09.2025 (Tri.-Kolkata) ; v) Commissioner of Customs (Admin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not established. 6.3. The next allegation in the impugned order is that the Appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR,2018. For better appreciation, Regulation of 10(d) of CBLR, 2018, is reproduced under : "A Custom Broker shall advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act 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 be" 6.4. As per the Regulation 10(d), the Custom Broker has to advise their clients to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, allied Acts and the rules and regulations made thereunder. We did not find anything in the records to prove that the appellant had not advised it's clients to follow the Act and Rules. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the appellant had violated the provisions of Regulation 10(d). 6.5. Regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, reads as under : "A Custom Broker shall verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant that they have violated the provisions of Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, is not established with evidence. 7. In the present case, we find that there has been no controverting evidence available on record to negate the voluminous documentary evidences submitted by the Appellant, such as specimen KYCs of the disputed importers, authorization letters for appointing the instant appellant as Customs House Agent filed with the offices of the concerned Customs Officer and the Traffic Manger/Cargo Manager of Port Trust/AAI, Dum Dum, certification by the importer's bank bearing attested photograph of the importers dealing personnel/director, GST registration certificate of importer, PAN issued by Income Tax Department, Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Aadhaar of the dealing personnel/directors, declaration provided to Gems and Jewellery Exports Promotion Counsel, Mumbai bearing certification of Chartered Accountant, importer-companies' Certificate of Incorporation, Examination and Appraisement Report by the customs authority, report of valuation by government approved valuer, particulars of appointme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers used to be appointed by the Appellant CB, in connivance with the middle-men and the Customs Broker used to influence the Govt. approved Valuers for the valuation of the said import consignments by asking them to keep the value at par with the declared values. We fail to understand as to how a Custom Broker will be held responsible for overvaluation, since the customs duty payable will be on the higher side when the goods imported are over valued. Thus, we find that the allegations against the Appellant CB are not established in this case. 9. In view of the above findings, we hold that the allegation that the Customs Broker has violated the Regulations of 10(a),10(d) & 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, has not been established. Accordingly, we hold that the revocation of the CB License for the said violations is legally not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. As the allegations against the Appellants are not sustained, the forfeiture of security deposit is also not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in the....