Customs Broker Not Liable for Importer’s Post-Clearance Acts | CESTAT

Case Details: Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport & General, New Delhi (2025) 35 Centax 124 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dr. Rachna Gupta, Member (J) & Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
• Ms Vidushi Shubham, Advocate, for the Appellant.
• Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, acting as a Customs Broker (CB), had filed a Bill of Entry for warehousing of goods intended for re-export and facilitated clearance of the goods at the Customs port. It was on record that the appellant had advised the importer regarding the requirement of a No Objection Certificate (NOC), and that such NOC was subsequently obtained from the competent authority. The departmental proceedings alleged violation of obligations under Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 on the ground that the importer, after clearance, did not deposit the goods in the warehouse and persons controlling the importer firm acted to defraud revenue. The appellant contended that its obligation was limited to facilitating clearance of goods for warehousing and that it had no role in post-clearance activities, including deposition of goods in the warehouse. It was further contended that there was no allegation or evidence that the appellant had advised, aided, or abetted any act of fraud by the importer. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that a Customs Broker acts as an agent for the limited purpose of arranging release of goods and, once the goods are cleared, has no further function or responsibility in relation to the importer’s subsequent actions. The Tribunal held that the obligation of the appellant stood confined to facilitating clearance of goods for warehousing at the Customs port and that the appellant was admittedly not responsible for deposition of goods in the warehouse. It was held that, in the absence of any allegation or evidence showing that the appellant had advised or aided the importer in any fraudulent activity, no violation of Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 could be sustained. The Tribunal accordingly held that the revocation of the Customs Broker licence by the Customs authorities was not sustainable.

List of Cases Cited

• Baraskar Brothers v. Commissioner — 2009 (244) E.L.T. 562 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 5]
• Buhariwala Logistics v. Commissioner — 2016 (331) E.L.T. 633 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3.5]
• Classic Strips Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (339) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3.5]
• Collector v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. — 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 8]
• Commissioner v. K.M. Ganatra & Co. — 2016 (332) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
• Commissioner v. Naresh Kumar Meena — 2018 (360) E.L.T. 60 (Raj.) — Referred [Para 5]
• D.S. Cargo Agency v. Commissioner — CUSAA No. 2 of 2022, decided on 25-9-2023 by Delhi High Court — Relied on [Para 9]
• Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (338) E.L.T. 725 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3.5]
• Jasjeet Singh Marwaha v. Union of India — 2009 (239) E.L.T. 407 (Del.) — Referred [Para 5]
• R.P. Cargo Handling Services v. Commissioner — Customs Appeal No. 50490/2019 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Referred [Para 3.5]
• Skytrain Services v. Commissioner — 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1739 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 5]