Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
A And A International Freight ... vs Commissioner Of Customs Airport & ... on 14 May, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
New Delhi
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No.55794 Of 2023
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 67/ZR/Policy/2023 dated 13.10.2023 passed
by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi]
M/s A & A International Freight Forwarders : Appellant
Khasra No. 599(2-5), Durga Ashram
Near Thakur General Store, Chattarpur Extn.
New Delhi-110074
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) : Respondent
New Customs House, New Delhi-110037
APPEARANCE:
Shri Akhil Krishan Maggu, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER No.50691/2025
Date of Hearing:17.02.2025
Date of Decision:14.05.2025
HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA
The present appeal has been filed against the Order-In-Original
67/ZR/Policy/2023 dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of
Customs (Airport & General), New Custom House, New Delhi vide
which the Custom Broker License of the M/s A & A International
Freight Forwarders1 was revoked. In addition to the revocation,
security deposit furnished by the appellant was forfeited and a penalty
of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed upon the appellant.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:-
1 the appellant
2
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
(i) An Analytics Report No. 32/2022-23 dated 05.01.2023 regarding
fraudulent exports by non-existent entities issued by the Additional
Director General, National Customs Targeting Centre2, Directorate
General of Analysing & Risk Management3, Mumbai was received
through email dated 07.02.2023.
(ii) The report revealed that the appellant had facilitated custom
clearance for an exporter namely M/s Ariction Overseas4, for whom
the appellant had filed 16 shipping bills during the period of
13.09.2021 to 05.10.2021.
(iii) The said report highlighted that the said exporter could not be
traced during verification, and hence he was declared as to be a
non-existent entity.
(iv) Consequently, the custom broker license of the appellant was
suspended with immediate effect vide Order No.
07/ZR/Suspension/Policy/2023 Dated 15.02.2023. Thereafter, vide
order dated 06.03.2023, the suspension of the custom broker
license of the appellant was confirmed.
3. The Department issued the show cause notice dated 24.04.2023
wherein the appellant was show caused as to why:
(a) they should not be held responsible for
contravention of provisions of Regulation 10(d),
10(e) & and 10(n) of Custom Broker licensing
Regulation, 2018;
(b) their Customs Broker License No. R-
04/DEL/CUS/2013 (PAN No. BAEPS1360L) valid up
2 NCTC
3 DGARM
4 The exporter
3
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
to 31.12.2042 should not be revoked and part or
whole of the security submitted at the time of issue
of their Registration, should not be forfeited in
terms of Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of
CBLR, 2018.
(c) penalty should not be imposed on them under the
provisions of Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 read with
Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018.
4. Vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2023, the Customs Broker
License was revoked, security deposit forfeited and penalty imposed.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us in appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the impugned
order has been passed without considering the contentions in the reply
filed and agitated by them before the respondent. The period of
dispute relates to the month of September-October 2021. Hence, the
action against the appellant by the customs authority under CBLR,
2018 in 2023 is uncalled for and not tenable in the eyes of law.
5.1 Learned counsel further contended that it has been alleged that
the appellant had violated various provisions of the CBLR,
2018.However,he contended that the department had not disclosed
the provisions of the CBLR, 2018, which have been violated by the
appellant. Learned counsel submitted that proper KYC had been duly
done by the appellant and the appellant also submitted KYC
documents and other relevant documents which were obtained from
the exporter, and submitted to the department. However, the
department has failed to appreciate this fact. He further submitted
that the appellant had followed the guidelines as per Circular No.
4
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
02/2018-Customs Dated 12.01.2018 and CBIC Circular No. 09/2010-
Customs Dated 8.04.2010. In this context, learned counsel relied on
the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) vs.
Commissioner of Customs (I&G), IGI Airport, New Delhi5.
5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the exporter i.e. M/s
Ariction Overseas cannot be framed as a fictitious firm as the DGFT
had provided the Importer Exporter Code to the exporter. He also
submitted that copies of Aadhar card, rent agreement, GST
Registration Certificate, PAN card, electricity bill, bank letter and other
KYC documents were received which clearly reflects that the appellant
had fulfilled his obligation under CBLR, 2018. The learned counsel
relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Shipping
Agency vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport &
Administration), Kolkata6 in this regard.
5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the proprietor of the
appellant i.e. Sh. Anil Kumar had been given the KYC documents of
the exporter by the proprietor of the exporter himself and not by
anyone else and the appellant duly completed the KYC formalities. He
relied on the decision of the Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Setwin
Shipping Agency vs. Commissioner of Customs (General),
Mumbai7.
5.4 Learned counsel also submitted that there is no evidence on
record to show that the appellant had advised his client i.e. M/s
Ariction Overseas to not comply with the provisions of the Act. Further
he stated that there is no evidence to show the knowledge of the
5 2017 (354) ELT 0447 Del.
6 2017 (348) ELT 0502 Tri-Cal
7 2010 (250) ELT 141 (Tri-Mumbai)
5
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
appellant in any of any non-compliance done by M/s Ariction Overseas.
He drew attention toKrishna Shipping Agency vs. Commissioner
of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata,8 wherein the
Tribunal held that:
"at no stage the appellant had knowledge of any
irregularly in export/import consignments .... order
of revocation of license is set-aside."
In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of M/s Swastic Cargo Agency Versus
Commissioner of Customs (General)9. He submitted that the
revocation of the appellant's customs Broker License had caused acute
financial hardship to the Directors and the employees and they would
suffer irreparable losses in case the suspension is not set-aside as the
license is the only source of bread and butter for the appellant.
5.5 Learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Principal Bench
of the Tribunal in the case of Him Logistics Pvt Ltd vs.
Commissioner of Him of Customs, New Delhi10 wherein this
Tribunal held that:
"Absence of physical verification of importer-
Undisputedly, appellant verifying copies of
Partnership Deed of importer firm, IEC, PAN Card
and Voter ID of Partner- No stipulation or legal
requirement of physically verifying business or
residential premises of importer."
5.6 Learned counsel also pointed out that this decision of the
Tribunal was affirmed by a Double Bench of the Delhi High Court in
8 2017 (348) ELT 0502 (Tri-Cal)
9 Writ Petition (C) No. 6571/2018
10 2016 (338) ELT 725 (Tri-Del)
6
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
the matter of Commissioner of Customs vs. Him Logistics Pvt
Ltd11 and it was held that:
"Tribunals order holding respondent verified
IEC Copy, PAN Card, Telephone Bill, Partnership
Deed and Voter ID of Partners of importing firm,
cannot be faulted-Such order based on fact finding
not interferable-Regulation 11 of CBLR."
6. Learned authorized representative for the Department
submitted that NCTC, DGARM had identified risky Shipping Bills filed
by various non-existent Exporters. The instant Analytic Report
contained details of 27 Non-existent IECs who had filed a total of 436
Shipping Bills with an FOB Value of Rs. 436.49 Cr and taken Export
benefits of Rs 23.74 Crores, besides IGST refunds in respect of such
exports. The Exporter, M/s Ariction Overseas in the present case had
suo moto cancelled their GSTN issued on 05.07.2021whereas the IEC
was issued on 12.07.2021 at Narela, North Delhi address. Learned
authorized representative contended that a perusal of the rent
agreement from owner Sh Bhawan Mann, the GSTIN & IEC shows that
the two addresses were different. Investigations had also revealed
that the Appellant/Customs Broker had violated the provisions of
CBLR, 2018 as the exporter had lodged a complaint dated 02.06.2023
before DCP Delhi Police that some persons has committed fraud with
his KYC documents that were handed over to get a job. It was
alleged that the appellant has misused his documents to facilitate
fraudulent exports. The statement of Sh Dhiraj, the exporter of
Ariction Overseas revealed that he had not authorized the appellant
and these exports consignments did not belong to him. He further
11 2017 (348) ELT 625 (Del)
7
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
submitted that he had not got any order nor did he sign any
documents. He submitted that the exports of these goods through the
appellant were fraudulent exports and he had been cheated by some
Anil and Ashok Sharma. The Appellant was neither authorized by the
Exporter to file the Shipping Bills.
6.1 Learned authorized representative further stated that when the
proper authorization was not obtained as per Regulation 10 (a) of the
CBLR 2018, the question of exercising due diligence under Regulation
10(e) and advising his clients to adhere to the provisions of the Act
and Rules cannot be ascertained. Learned authorized representative
also stated that the IEC had been obtained by submitting fake
documents by fraudsters and the appellant never verified anything
since Mr Dhiraj in whose name the IEC was issued, had never
contacted the appellant CB and had never authorized any one for the
said exports.
6.2 Learned authorized representative also contended that as per
regulation 10 (n) of the CBLR 2018, the Customs Broker has 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; he had not
done any verification. The regulation required him to verify the
genuineness with reliable documents. He submitted that the exporter
whose IEC was used had denied having authorized the export.
Hence, the Customs Broker had violated the provisions of CBLR, 2018
as he had prior knowledge of the forgery. Learned authorized
8
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
representative relied on the judgement of Patna High Court in
Bhaskar Logistics case, wherein it was held as under:-
―31. Thus, the importer/exporter is a person who imports
or exports goods on his own account and such person
must have his own account number in his name as granted
by the Director General of Foreign Trade and is under
obligation to declare it to the Customs in terms of Rule 12
of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. It is the
legislative intent that only one Importer Exporter Code is
allowed against one Permanent Account Number (PAN)
and no person could import or export without IEC. If the
actual importer or exporter is not having his own IEC, he
could be able to circumvent the obligation imposed under
Customs Act or under any other law, for the time being in
force.‖
6.3 Learned authorized representative contended that the Apex
Court in K.M. Ganatra and Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs12
while approving the observations of the CEGAT as per Para 15 had
held that as follows:-
"15. The CHA occupies a very important position in the
Customs House. The Customs procedures are complicated.
The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies
viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs.
The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods
through these agencies without wasting valuable energy
and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests
of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is
kept in CHA by the Importers/exporters as well as by the
Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of
such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation
14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of
the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even
without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA
the punishment listed in the Regulations...."
We approve the aforesaid observation of the CEGAT, West
Zonal Bench, Mumbai and unhesitatingly hold that this
misconduct has to be seriously viewed.‖
6.4 Learned authorized representative also submitted that the Apex
Court in its judgement in Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs. Union of
India13 has held that the statements recorded before the Customs
12 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC)
13 1997 (89) ELT 646 (S.C.)
9
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
Officers are admissible before a Court of Law as Customs Officers are
not Police Officers. He further relied on the judgement of the Apex
court in Commissioner Of Central Excise, Madras vs. System &
Components Private Limited14 wherein it was held that it is a basic
and settled law that "what is admitted need not to be proved". In the
light of above submissions and relying on the compilations of case laws
and the facts on record, learned authorized representative concluded
that the appellant had been negligent or he had connived with the
fraudsters which had resulted into loss of the exchequer and thus he
has breached the trust of the Department.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned authorized representative for the Department and perused the
records of the appeal.
8. The facts leading to the issue of the impugned order are that the
National Customs Targeting Centre, Directorate General of Analytics
and Risk Management under that Central Board of Indirect taxes and
Customs analysed import/export data and identified risky exporters
involved in IGST refund frauds. Physical verification of the addresses
were conducted by the field formations and some exporters could not
be verified physically or were untraceable. Based on the feedback
received from the formations, the Analytics Report No-32/2022-23
dated 05.01.2023 was issued to the concerned Customs formations.
From the list of risky exporters there were about 16 Shipping Bills
processed by the appellant involving drawback/RodTEP & RoSCTL. The
details are given below table:-
Port S/Bs FOB value Drawback RodTEP/RoSCTL IGST
14 2004 (165) ELT 136 (S.C.)
10
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
ICD, 16 18,68,11,358 58,02,451 1,18,371 LUT
Tughlakabad
9. Based on the above report, the CB license was suspended vide
Order-in-original dated 15.02.23. Thereafter, Show Cause Notice dated
24.04.2023 calling upon the appellant to explain why their Customs
Broker License should not be revoked for violations of Regulations
10(d), 10€ and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2012. The Commissioner then
passed the impugned order and revoked appellant's Customs Broker
Licence, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.
10. The short question which falls for our consideration in this case
is given the evidence adduced in the SCN and the evidence in defence,
has a case been established by the Revenue that the appellant had
violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 and if so,
whether the revocation of licence and imposition of penalty by the
impugned order can be sustained.
10.1 The relevant Regulations are reproduced hereinafter for ease of
reference: -
"10. Obligations of Customs Broker.--A Customs Broker shall-
.....................................................................................................................
(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;
11
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023 ................................................................................................ ......
(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;.................‖
11. At the outset, it needs to be noted that the appellant had filed the documents of the exporter, who had exported under claim for drawback, RoDTEP/RoSCTL and not IGST, for which the said Analytics Report had been issued.
12. We will now examine the violations as per the allegations made in the impugned order. A violation of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018 involves a customs broker failing to file bills of entry based on accurate documents, failing to advise importers on proper declaration and duty payment, or failing to inform customs authorities about any doubts or concerns. Essentially, it relates to a Custom broker's negligence in ensuring accurate and complete documentation for customs clearance. In the instant case, we note that the appellant was engaged in filing the export related documents of the exporter, which were cleared by the Customs authorities at the relevant time. There is no evidence adduced by the Department that incorrect documents were filed. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellant had obtained the KYC documents and conducted the verification as required. According to the Revenue, the appellant's contention that they had met the Proprietor of the exporter firm M/s Ariction Overseas, Sh Dheeraj has been contradicted by the exporter who submitted that his documents were obtained fraudulently. Apart from 12 Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023 the said statement of Shri Dheeraj, there nothing on record to substantiate his contention. The learned authorized representative has relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Bhaskar Logistics in this context. However, apart from a mere statement of the exporter Shri Dheeraj, and FIR filed consequent to the initiation of investigations cannot be accepted as a true representation of the events as there is no concurrent corroborative evidence which substantiates the claim of the exporter of having been defrauded. It is quite possible that this statement and the FIR was an afterthought, consequent to the initiation of investigations. The facts are that the appellant filed the customs documents for the instant exporter and the said documents were cleared by the Customs authorities in the year 2021. After a gap of 2 years, the said exporter was found to be non-existent at the address, during a verification. This in no way establishes that the said exporter was not available in this address at the time of exports. No evidence has been led by the Department to establish that the exporter was non-existent at the time of the exports.
13. Consequently, we hold that this cannot be treated as a violation of the appellant under Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018.
14. A violation of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 generally means a failure to exercise due diligence in verifying the correctness of information provided to a client related to customs clearance. This could involve not properly verifying the client's documents, credentials, or the accuracy of information shared about the cargo. In this context, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was in possession of the required KYC documents at the time of customs clearance of the 13 Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023 subject goods. It has been submitted that all due diligence as required under the CBLR, 2018 and Circular No. 02/2018-Customs dated 12.01.2018 read with Circular No. 09/2010-Customs dated 8.04.2010. The said Customs authorities did not raise any objection at the time of any clearance of the said goods. No mis-declaration or under valuation of the goods has been reported at the time of its clearance for export. Further, we note that there is no evidence as to what wrong information was provided by the appellant, in their capacity as customs broker to the Department or the exporter. Consequently, we hold that the violation of said regulations is not established.
15. We note that a violation of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 typically occurs when a customs broker fails to verify the identity of their client using reliable, independent, and authentic documents, data, or information. This means the broker needs to be certain about who their client is and ensure they are not dealing with a fictitious entity. In this context, we note that the learned counsel has submitted that due verification was carried out by the appellant. Learned authorized representative has refuted this claim stating that the GSTN of the exporter was issued for Sarita Vihar address whereas the IEC was issued for Narela address. It has also been submitted that the GSTN was cancelled suo-moto by the exporter on 05.07.2021. In this context, the learned authorized representative has relied on the decisions of Supreme Court that ‗fraud' vitiates everything. However, we are unable to appreciate this contention as there is no evidence of any fraud committed by the appellant. We note that as per the Circulars supra, two documents, one for proof of identity and other for proof of address are required for KYC verification, whereas in case of 14 Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023 individuals, if any one document listed in the Board Circular No. 9/2010-Cus dated 08.04.2010 containing both proof of identity and proof of addresses, the same would suffice for the purposes of KYC verification. Aadhaar card had also been recognised as one of the documents for individuals. In the instant case, it is on record that IEC, GSTIN Aadhar card, Rent Agreement and PAN of the exporter were taken by the appellant. There is no allegation that these documents are forged or fake. Verification of these government issued documents did not throw up any anamoly. Consequently, the allegation that the appellant committed fraud does not stand. In this context, we find support in the decision in M/s Perfect Cargo & Logistics Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi15, wherein the Tribunal had decided the issue of KYC verification of the importer/exporter by the Customs broker and the requirements specified in the CBLR, 2018.
"34. The basic requirement of Regulation10(n) is that the Customs Broker should verify the identity of the client and functioning of the client at the declared address by using, reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. For this purpose, a detailed guideline on the list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client is contained in the Annexure to the Circular dated April 8, 2010. It has also been mentioned in the aforesaid Circular that any of the two listed documents in the Annexure would suffice. The Principal Commissioner noticed in the impugned order that any two documents could be obtained. The appellant had submitted two documents and this fact has also 15 2021 (376) E.L.T. 649 (Tri. - Del.) 15 Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023 been stated in paragraph 27(a) of the order. It was obligatory on the part of the Principal Commissioner to have mentioned the documents and discussed the same but all that has been stated in the impugned order is that having gone through the submissions of the Customs Broker, it is found that there is no force in the submissions. The finding recorded by the Principal Commissioner that the required documents were not submitted is, therefore, factually incorrect."
16. We also take note of judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (I&G), IGI Airport, New Delhi16 ,wherein the Court held that the appellants CB is not an officer of Customs who would have an expertise to identify mis-declaration of goods. The relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted below:
"The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through customs house and in that process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs house area............... It would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of the IE Code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there is a presumption that an appropriate background check in this regard i.e. KYC etc. would have been done by the customs authorities."
16.1 From the above order of the Tribunal and on the basis of the factual matrix of the present case, particularly when the appellants CB had handled the export consignments in the year 2021 without any query raised by the Customs authorities, it cannot be said that they had violated Regulation 10(n) ibid.
16 2017 (354) E.L.T. 447 (Del.) 16 Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023
17. Merely based on the NCTC, DGARM report, the Customs authorities have found it appropriate to deprive the appellant and its employees of their livelihood. Such a harsh action is to be initiated only when there are serious violations by the CB. Similar observations have been made by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Souparnika Shipping Services vs Pr. Commissioner of Customs vide Final Order Nos. 40019-40020 / 2024 dated 05.01.2024 wherein the Tribunal held as follows:-
―10.2 The Customs Broker license was suspended vide F.No. R- 498/CHA dated 15.07.2019, thus, more than four years passed since the time of suspension. In the case of K.S. Sawant & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2012 (284) ELT 363 (Tri. -Mum.)], it was held that mere signing of documents by a CHA would not prove that the clearances were undertaken by the CHA and punishment for the same could not be revocation of license of the CHA as that would be extreme and harsh. Further, in the cases of L.M.S. Transport Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2014 (299) ELT 368 (Tri.- Mumbai)] and Thawerdas Wadhoomal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2008 (221) ELT 252 (Tri.- Mum.)], it was held that the revocation of license is not justified when third party was merely bringing business to the CHA and also when the CHA is filing the documents in good faith on the basis of the material handed to him by his clients.
10.3 In this context, we also refer to the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I&G) [2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del.)], wherein it was held as under:- 17
Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023 "12. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs has stressed that the infraction in this case is not a routine matter, but rather, illegal smuggling of narcotics by the G card users.
However, given the 14 C/40199&40248/2020 factual finding that the CHA was not aware of the misuse of the G cards (and thus, also unaware of the contents being smuggled), no additional blame can be heaped upon the CHA on that count alone. Rather, the only proved infraction on record is of the issuance of G cards to non-employees, as opposed to the active facilitation of any infraction, or any other violation of the CHA Regulations, whether gross or otherwise. Neither have any such allegations been raised as to the past conduct of the appellant, from the time the license was granted in January, 1996. Equally, it is important to note that the appellant has - as of today - been unable to work the license for 8 years, and thus been penalized in this manner. This is not to say that the trust operating between the Customs Authorities and the CHA is to be taken lightly, or that violations of the CHA Regulations should not be dealt with sternly. A penalty must be imposed. At the same time, the penalty must - as in any ordered system - be proportional to the violation. Just as the law abhors impunity for infractions, it cautions against a disproportionate penalty. Neither extreme is to be encouraged. In this case, in view of the absence of any mens rea, the violation concerns the provision of G cards to two individuals and that alone. A penalty of revocation of license for this contravention of the CHA Regulations unjustly 18 Customs Appeal No. 55794 Of 2023 restricts the appellant's ability to engage in the business of the CHA for his entire lifetime. As importantly, it skews the proportionality doctrine, substantially lowering the bar for revocation as a permissible penalty, especially given the dire civil consequences that follow. On the other hand, the minority Opinion of the CESTAT, delivered by the Judicial Member, correctly appreciates the balance of relevant factors, i.e. knowledge/mens rea, gravity of the infraction, the stringency of the penalty of revocation, the fact that the appellant has already been unable to work his license for a period of 6 years (now 8 years), and accordingly sets aside the order of the Commissioner dated 24-1-2005."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Appreciating the above judicial precedents and having regard to the facts of the appeal, we are of the view that revocation of Customs Brokers License is too harsh a punishment which is bound to affect the livelihood of the Customs Broker and his employees.
19. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2025) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) G.Y.