Case Details: Ravi Dhanwariya Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General), New Delhi (2025) 37 Centax 369 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ms. Binu Tamta, Member (J) & Shri P. V. SUBBA RAO, Member (T)
- Shri T. Chakrapani, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.
- Shri M.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The proceedings were initiated against the appellant-assessee, a Customs Broker, proposing revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit on alleged violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(n) and 10(q) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. It was alleged that the Customs Broker failed to obtain and produce authorisation from exporters despite repeated summons and responded only at the stage of personal hearing by stating that such authorisation existed. It was further alleged that the Customs Broker failed to verify the existence of the exporter and did not cooperate with the investigation. The appellant-assessee contended that KYC documents, Importer Exporter Code, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number and other prescribed documents had been obtained and verified from official departmental portals, that there was no obligation to physically verify the existence of the exporter, and that there was no material to show failure to advise the exporter or deliberate non-reporting of non-compliance. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
High Court Held
The CESTAT held that non-production of authorisation despite summons amounted to a violation of Regulation 10(a) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, and that non-cooperation with the investigation constituted a violation of Regulation 10(q) thereof. It was held that Regulation 10(d) was not violated as there was nothing on record to show that the Customs Broker had not advised the exporter or had knowingly not reported any non-compliance. The Tribunal further held that Regulation 10(n) was not violated since KYC documents, IEC and GSTIN had been obtained and verified from official websites, and there was no requirement to physically verify the existence of the exporter. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Tribunal set aside the order of revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000, and partly allowed the appeal.
