Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Planet World Cargo vs Commissioner, Customs (Airport & ... on 31 October, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH-COURT NO. 1
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50734 OF 2021
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 30/MK/Revocation/Policy/2020
dated 26.06.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport &
General), New Delhi]
M/S PLANET WORLD CARGO .....APPELLANT
K-363, Street No. 6-C,
Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi
110037
Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, AIRPORT &
.....RESPONDENT
GENERAL New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037 Appearance:
Mr. Sharad Shrivastava and Ms. Gunjan Tanwar, Advocates for the Appellant Mr.Shiv Shankar and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) FINAL ORDER NO. 51664 /2025 DATE OF HEARING : 22/07/2025 DATE OF DECISION : 31/10/2025 P.V. SUBBA RAO
1. M/s Planet World Cargo1, a Customs Broker, filed this appeal to assail the Order dated 26.06.20202 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi3 revoking the Customs Broker licence of the appellant, forfeiting the entire security deposit and imposition a penalty of Rs.
50,000/- for violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 1 appellant 2 Impugned order 3 Commissioner 2 C/50734/2021 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 20184. The appellant is a licensed customs broker, whose licence was valid up to 05.02.2026. The Commissioner received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner, Inland Container Depot, New Delhi by a letter dated 30.08.2019 along with a copy of the SCN dated 23.04.2019 issued by the Additional Director, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence5. He also received another letter from the Deputy Commissioner, ICD Tughlakabad along with a copy of another SCN dated 23.08.2019 issued by the DRI. Treating these two letters and the enclosed SCNs as offence reports, proceedings were initiated against the appellant under CBLR.
2. Both SCNs indicated that two exporters, namely, M/s KKS Export & Import and M/s Snibe Worldwide had filed shipping bills through the appellant to export goods declared as "Self Adhesive Vinyl Sheets" mis-declaring both the nature of the goods and their value in order to avail undue export benefits from the Government. Acting on this intelligence, DRI investigated the matter and issued the aforesaid two SCNs. Investigations were conducted by the Commissioner into the appellant which culminated in issue of a show cause notice dated 28.11.2019 proposing action against the appellant under the CBLR for violation regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n). An inquiry officer was also appointed in the SCN who submitted his report. Thereafter, the Commissioner passed the impugned order holding that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(a) and 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR. Consequently, he revoked the licence of the 4 CBLR 5 DRI 3 C/50734/2021 appellant, forfeited its security deposit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative appearing for the revenue and perused the records.
Submissions of the appellant
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows:
(i) The impugned order needs to be set aside solely on the ground of delay. The inquiry report was issued by the inquiry officer on 26.02.2020 whereas the Commissioner passed the impugned order on 26.06.2020 i.e, after 120 days which is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under regulation 17(7) of CBLR for passing the order. She relied on the following decisions:
(a) Shaikh and Pandit Agenvies Pvt Ltd. vs. Pr.
Commissioner of Customs Kol6
(b) Chatterji & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admin), Kolkata7
(c) Impexnet Logistic vs. Commissioner of Customs (General)8
(ii) The appellant was approached by one, Mr. Najib to clear consignments of two exporters, namely, M/s KKS Exports & Import and M/s Snibe Worldwide. 6 (2023) 7 Centax 220 (Cal.) 7 (2024) 18 Centax 537 (Tri.-Cal.) 8 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del.) (01.06.2016) 4 C/50734/2021 Before accepting these assignments, the appellant had obtained a KYC documents from Mr. Najib and verified the Import Export Code9 from the site of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade10, GSTIN, PAN, etc. The exporters were found to exist and accordingly the appellant had filed three shipping bills to export goods. During examination, DRI found that the goods were of inferior quality and were also mis- declared. Further inquiry also showed that the exporters did not exist at all at their address and Mr. Najib was the mastermind who obtained IEC and provided KYC documents of the exporters and also export documents and managed transportation of the goods by hiding his real identity. It is for this reason, the DRI issued Show Cause Notices.
(iii) It has been held in the impugned order that the appellant violated regulation 10(a) by not obtaining the authorization from the exporters. Since Mr. Najib presented himself as representative of the exporters, the appellant filed shipping bills on his assurance and in good faith.
(iv) Regarding the finding that the appellant had violated regulation 10(d), this clause requires the Customs Broker to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other Allied Acts and rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy 9 IEC 10 DGFT 5 C/50734/2021 Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as a case may be. The appellant had advised Mr. Najib to comply with the provisions of Act and Rules and the appellant was not aware of the mis-declaration of the nature of the goods or the non-existence of the exporters. These came to light only on investigation by DRI.
(v) The finding in the impugned order that the appellant had violated regulation 10(e) is not correct. This clause requires the Customs Broker to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to any cargo or baggage. The appellant had exercised due diligence and did not provide any incorrect information to Mr. Najib or to the exporters.
(vi) Regarding the finding that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, the appellant had obtained all KYC documents such as the IEC, PAN and GSTIN through Mr. Najib and verified the correctness of these documents on the website of DGFT, GST department and the Income Tax Department. The appellant had no reason to doubt the genuineness of any of these documents. Therefore, the appellant had not violated regulations 10(n).
(vii) Further, the appellant's licence was suspended in September 2019 and then revoked by the impugned order on 26.06.2020 and the appellant has effectively 6 C/50734/2021 been without work for past six years. The appellant suffered a loss and, therefore, the Tribunal may kindly restore his licence.
(viii) The impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
Submissions of the Revenue
5. Learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue made the following submissions:
(i) There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. DRI received intelligence about the fraudulent exports being made in the name of non-existent / fictitious firms to obtain unlawful export benefits from the government and investigated. The appellant was found to have handled three shipments which, on examination, were found to poor quality self adhesive Vinyl Sheets. It was further found that the appellant had handled 10 such fraudulent exports before these re-shipments.
(ii) Admittedly, the appellant had not even contacted the purported exporters, let alone, obtaining any authorization from them. The appellant simply worked through one Mr. Najib and at his behest, filed shipping bills.
(iii) The appellant had sought cross examination of Mr. Najib which was fixed on 10.06.2020 and he was asked to appear for cross examination by the 7 C/50734/2021 appellant. Both Mr. Najib and the appellant did not appear on that date. It shows that the plea of request of cross-examination was nothing but an attempt to delay and avoid the consequences of the violations of CBLR.
(iv) Mr. Satinder Singh, G-card holder of the appellant, had in his statement dated 04.03.2019 when asked about the verifying the genuineness of the two exporters, stated that he had met Mr. Najib in December 2018 and received all documents from him. He further said that Mr. Najib told him that he works for many exporters and will give a lot of work. Mr. Najib used to provide all documents for filing the shipping bills and they had not obtained any authorization in their favour even from Mr. Najib.
(v) During investigation Mr. Piyush Arora, who is said to be one of the partners of the KKS Exports and Imports stated that he had neither created any firm in that name nor knew any firm by that name. He also said that he never met any person called Mr. Najib. He also filed a police complaint in this matter.
(vi) Similary Mr. Rajkumar, one of the supposed partners of M/s Snibe World Wide, gave a statement on 21.08.2019 stating that he had no relationship with M/s Snibe World Wide nor does he know anybody called Mr. Najib. Clearly, all the 8 C/50734/2021 firms were fictitious and at the behest of Mr. Najib, the appellant had filed Shipping Bills in the name of such non-existent firms.
(vii) Therefore, it is clear that the appellant had violated regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR.
(viii) The impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be dismissed.
Findings
6. The three issues to be decided in this appeal are:
a) Whether the impugned order was passed beyond the time limit of 90 days laid down under Regulation 17(7) of the CBLR?
b) Whether the appellant had violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10 (e) and 10(n) of CBLR?
c) If so, whether the of the revocation of the licence of the appellant, forfeiture of the security deposit and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant are proportionate to the violations?
7. As far as the time limit under section 17(7) is concerned, during the relevant period, due to COVID Pandemic, the Supreme Court had extended the time limits under any law from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. The Inquiry Report was submitted by the officer on February 26, 2020 and the impugned order was passed on June 26, 2020. Both dates squarely fall within the COVID pandemic and the limitation would not apply. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed beyond the time limit of 90 days.
9
C/50734/2021
8. Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10 (e) and 10(n) of CBLR lay down certain obligations on the Customs Broker as follows:
"10. Obligations of Customs Broker-- A Customs Broker shall --
(a) obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;
(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 be;
(e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage;
(n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information;"
9. Regulation 10(a) requires the Customs Broker to obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation. The appellant filed Shipping Bills in the names of two exporters- M/s. K.K. Exports & Import and M/s. Snibe Worldwide. Not only did the appellant not obtain any authorization from either of these exporters, it was not even contacted by the, two exporters. The appellant had also not even contacted the two exporters. The appellant filed Shipping Bills at the behest of Mr. Najib. The submission of the learned counsel is that Mr. Najib had obtained business for the appellant from the exporters. Even if it is so, the least that the appellant should have done is to contact the exporters and obtain their authorisations before filing the Shipping Bills. What the appellant had done is akin to an advocate filing a Writ Petition or a Suit in a court of law in the name of someone without being engaged by 10 C/50734/2021 that person and without even talking to them and behind their back.
10. If any Customs Broker files a Shipping Bill or a Bill of Entry in the name of any exporter or importer, he will be acting as the agent of that exporter or importer. He cannot appoint himself as someone's agent without that person's explicit authorisation and worse without even his knowledge. He cannot act as the agent of one at the behest of someone else who promises to get him business. Any Bills of Entry or Shipping Bills so filed will be clearly benami (pseudonymous). If filing of benami Bills of Entry or Shipping Bills is allowed or condoned, it will have very serious consequences. Anyone can import or export any contraband- arms, ammunition, drugs, explosives, etc. under the guise of normal cargo - without any consequences because the person in whose name the documents have been filed will have nothing to do with nor any knowledge about the consignments. The Customs Broker who filed the documents can claim that he filed them at the behest of some other person and therefore he is not responsible.
11. In this case, the appellant did not even make any attempt to contact the persons in whose name he filed the Shipping Bills. Even in the appeal and synopsis before us, in response to the allegation of violation of Regulation 10(d), learned counsel submitted that the appellant had advised Mr. Najib to follow the Act and Rules. Evidently, the appellant treated Mr. Najib as its client. If so, the appellant could have filed the documents only in the name of Mr. Najib using his IEC and should have obtained an 11 C/50734/2021 authorisation from him. The most basic requirement about which everyone dealing with imports and exports would know is that IEC is not transferable and the IEC of the importer has to be indicated in the Bill of Entry and the IEC of the exporter must be mentioned in the Shipping Bills. Certainly, Mr. Najib could not have engaged the appellant and asked it to file Shipping Bills in the name of and using the IEC of someone else. If the appellant treated Mr. Najib as its client, it could have filed Shipping Bills in his name alone.
12. We have no manner of doubt that the appellant violated Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR in filing Shipping Bills in the name of some purported exporters quoting their IECs without any instructions from them and without even contacting or informing them.
13. Regulation 10(d) requires the Customs Broker to advise its client to follow the Act and Rules and other Acts and in case of any violation, inform the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. The appellant not even contacted the exporters let alone advising them and filed Shipping Bills in their names behind their back.
14. The submission of the learned counsel is that the appellant had told Mr. Najib to follow the Act and Rules treating him as its client. Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 lays down that 'No person shall make any import or export except under an Importer-exporter Code Number granted by the Director General or the officer authorised by the Director General in this behalf, in accordance with the 12 C/50734/2021 procedure specified in this behalf by the Director General'. This requirement is well known to anyone dealing in imports and exports. In fact, it is not possible to file the Shipping Bills or Bills of Entry on the Indian Customs EDI System (ICES) without giving the IEC. If the appellant had treated Mr. Najib as its client, it could have only filed documents in his name, using his IEC, if any. The appellant should have advised Mr. Najib so. Instead, the appellant filed benami Shipping Bills at the behest of the Mr. Najib. Not only has the appellant not advised Mr. Najib properly but it has also actively colluded with him in filing benami shipping bills.
15. We have no doubt that the appellant violated Regulation 10(d) of CBLR.
16. Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR requires the customs broker to ensure correctness of the information which it imparts to it's clients. We do not find any evidence that the Customs Broker had provided any incorrect information to its clients from the records of the case.
17. We, therefore, find that the appellant did not violate Regulation 10(e) of CBLR.
18. Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR requires the customs broker to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The submission of the learned counsel for the 13 C/50734/2021 appellant is that Mr. Najib gave the appellant copies of IEC, PAN and GSTIN and it had verified them from the websites of the corresponding departments to ensure that they were indeed issued by them. It is also submission that the appellant does not have to physically verify the existence of the client at the premises.
19. If the appellant had treated the exporters in whose names it filed the Shipping bills as its clients, it should have obtained the documents from them and thereby should have verified the correctness of their identity and their functioning. While it is true that the customs broker does not have to physically go and check the existence of the exporter, it does have an obligation to verify. The very basic and obvious thing to verify is that it has actually been employed by the exporter before filing Shipping Bills in its name. The appellant did not verify anything and filed Shipping Bills behind the back of the exporters.
20. On the other hand, if the appellant had treated Mr. Najib as his client, he should have obtained his IEC, PAN, etc. and filed Shipping Bills in his name. The appellant did not do so and instead filed benami Shipping Bills in the names of some exporters at the behest of Mr. Najib.
21. In this factual matrix, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant violated Regulation 10(n).
22. The last question is of the proportionality of punishment for violation of Regulations 10(a), 10 (d) and 10 (n). In the facts of this case, where the appellant had filed benami Shipping Bills 14 C/50734/2021 without any authorisation from or even the knowledge of the IEC holders at the behest of Mr. Najib, we find the violations are serious enough to impose the maximum penalty of revocation of the licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-
23. In view of the above, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
[Order pronounced on 31/10/2025] (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P. V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Tejo