Case Details: Cappithan Agencies vs. Commissioner of Customs (2026) 38 Centax 226 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
- S/Shri Pradeep Jain, Subhankar Jha, B.S. Randhawa, Gopal Singh Chauhan, Harsh Gupta, Advocates & Ms. Goldy Goyal, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The customs broker filed a bill of entry for clearance of an import consignment by declaring it as diplomatic cargo in the nature of personal effects. It was found that a huge quantity of foreign-origin gold had been concealed in the consignment. Proceedings were initiated for revocation of the customs broker’s licence for breach of obligations cast upon him under Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m) and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, alleging abetment in gold smuggling. The Commissioner, while revoking the licence, took into consideration the antecedents of the customs broker and stated in an affidavit before the Court that the customs broker had misdeclared the consignor’s details in the bill of entry to make the consignment appear as genuine diplomatic cargo without invoices and packing lists, whereas the actual consignors were private individuals, thereby facilitating duty-free clearance of the goods. The High Court noted that the relationship between the Customs Department and the customs broker was essentially one of trust and examined the validity of licence revocation notwithstanding the fact that the customs broker’s appeal against penalty imposed under an earlier order for violation of regulations had been allowed by Central, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The Court held that once the relationship of trust between the Customs Department and the customs broker was breached and the customs broker ceased to inspire confidence in relation to his functioning, he lost the right to seek reinstatement of his licence. It was held that the High Court was justified in upholding revocation of the licence despite the fact that the appeal against penalty imposed under an earlier order had been allowed by CESTAT. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the special leave petition and sustained revocation of the customs broker’s licence under Regulation 17, read with Regulations 10 and 14, of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner — (2026) 38 Centax 225 (Ker.) — Affirmed [Para 1]
