Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Falcon Air Cargo And Travels Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Airport & ... on 2 April, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI.
PRINCIPAL BENCH,
COURT NO. I
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50820 OF 2025
[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 13/VPS/Policy/2025 dated
06/03/2025 passed by The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General),
New Delhi-110037.]
M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. ......Appellant
55-A, Siddharth Chambers,
3rd Floor, Behind Azad Apartments, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi - 110 046.
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, ....Respondent
(Airport & General),
New Customs House, Near IGI Airport,
New Delhi - 110 037
APPEARANCE:
Ms. Nikita Jaju and Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocates for the
appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, Authorized Representative for the
Department
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. 50650/2026
DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 02.04.2026
P.V. SUBBA RAO
M/s. Falcon Air Cargo & Travels1, a Customs Broker
licensed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations
20182, filed this appeal to assail the order dated 6.3.20253
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General),
1. appellant
2. CBLR
3. impugned order
2 C/50820 OF 2025
New Delhi4 revoking its Customs Broker licence, forfeiting the
entire security deposit and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-
on it.
2. The impugned order was issued in pursuance of the
show cause notice dated 25.9.20245 issued by the
Commissioner alleging that the appellant had violated
Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10 (n) of CBLR and the findings
of the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 6.12.2024 confirming
the allegations.
3. We have heard Ms. Nikita Jaju, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, learned authorized
representative for the Revenue and perused the records.
4. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order
are that the Directorate General of Analysis and Risk
Management6 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs analysed the data of exporters and identified 10
exporters who, DGARM suspected, did not exist at all but had
exported goods and claimed export incentives and potential
IGST refunds on exports of readymade garments. DGARM got
the premises of such exporters physically verified by the
jurisdictional officers and found that they did not exist.
5. DGARM also identified the Customs Brokers, including
the appellant, who had handled exports made by these firms.
4. Commissioner
5. SCN
6. DGARM
3 C/50820 OF 2025
The appellant had filed shipping bills for exports by one of the
ten suspected exporters, viz., Utkarsh International, NOIDA
who had been issued Import Exporter Code7 BJYPA5742H by
the Directorate General of Foreign Trade8 and GSTIN
09BJYPA5742H2ZR by the GST officers on 7.2.2022.
6. The SCN states that on verification of the exporters
including ‗Utkarsh International' by the jurisdictional CGST
formations, they have been reported to be non-existent.
Accordingly, the GSTIN issued to Utkarsh International was
cancelled suo moto retrospectively from 17.2.2022 (GSTIN
was registered on 7.2.2022) based on the alert received from
the NCTC of DGARM on 19.12.2022. Thus, after the
retrospective cancellation, the GSTIN was valid only for ten
days (7.2.2022 to 16.2.2022).
7. The appellant had filed four shipping bills for Utkarsh
International. The allegation in the SCN and the finding in the
impugned order is that the appellant had, by filing these four
shipping bills for Utkarsh International, violated Regulations
10(d), (e) and (n) of CBLR. These read as follows:
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
7. IEC
8. DGFT 4 C/50820 OF 2025 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;
8. According to the appellant, it had not violated any of the above regulations. The SCN was issued based only on two documents- email dated 11.7.2024 sent by the office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (RUD-1) and the Expert Risk Review Report of DGARM dated 2.7.2024 (RUD-2). The contents of the Export Risk Review Report were reproduced on pages 1 to 5 of the SCN. The number of shipping bills filed by the appellant for Utkarsh International is given in Table A of the SCN. Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n) are reproduced in the SCN and it is alleged that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n).
9. There is no dispute that Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n) read as above and that the appellant had filed four shipping bills as above for Utkarsh International. What needs to be examined is whether, based on the RUD-1 and RUD-2- the contents of which were reproduced in the SCN-it can be said that the appellant had violated these three regulations.
5 C/50820 OF 2025
10. Nothing in the entire report of DGARM (RUD-2) said to have been forwarded by Chief Commissioner's office (RUD-1) even remotely explains as to how the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n). Thus, there is nothing in the SCN to show that the appellant had violated any of these Regulations.
11. In the impugned order, however, the Commissioner found that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n) and his findings are as below.
Regulation 10(d)
12. The findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order insofar as this regulation is concerned are reproduced below:
―8.10.1 Regulation 10 (d) requires that the Customs Broker to 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. The Customs Broker in their submissions dated 17.02.2025 and 27.02.2025, inter-alia, submitted that it is nowhere mentioned in the CBLR, 2018 that Appointment Letter issued by Exporter, M/s Utkarsh International should be only through mail directly from Exporter. No proof is needed to produce whether Exporter advised or not, as advice can be verbal. Hence Allegation of violation is baseless without any evidences and Proof and denied that there was any violation of Regulation 10 (d) at all.
8.10.2 First of all, I completely disagree with the submission of the CB. It is clearly stated in the CBLR, 2018 that a Customs Broker (CB) must obtain authorization from each company, firm, or individual‖ by whom they re employed. As a Customs Broker, they are also required to advise their ―client‖. Here, the terms ―company‖ or ―client‖ specifically refer to the exporter for whom 6 C/50820 OF 2025 the CB is facilitating the consignment. From the definitions of CBLR Regulations, it can be derived that the CB shall receive the requisite documents related to the facilitation of a Shipping Bill directly from client i.e. Exporter, M/s Utkarsh International in this case and not from third party i.e. M/s A.K. Cargo Movers ([email protected]) as accepted by the Shri Deepak Kumar Pandey, G card holder of M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd.
in the Statement dated 03.01.2023, during investigation by SIIB, ACC Export. The issue is not whether the CB imparted incorrect advise to the importers, but rather the issue is that the CB advise the correct and accurate declaration/valuation related rules to the exporter or not. The answer is clear: the CB did not advise the exporter to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and CBLR regulations issued thereunder, especially considering that RGM export is considered as risky. M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. submitted authorization letter with no date claimed to be issued by Exporter, M/s Utkarsh International, wherein, it has been inter-alia written that ―we has been advised by CB/CHA to comply with the provisions of the Acts...‖ but it is not specified in the authorization that what type of due diligence was exercised and the nature of the advice was provided by the CB to the exporter. It has not been a part of CB submission that whether they have conveyed the Act/rules related to declaration of goods. M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. claimed that advice can be verbal. It indicates that M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. has not provide even ‗verbal' advice to the exporter to rules and regulations related to declaration of the consignment as the RMG found to be mis-declared (quantity of goods, girls viscose p/1 frock, was declared as 526 but it was found only 480) during investigation.
8.10.3 I observe that the intended purpose of introducing Regulations is supposed to be not fulfilled, if each CB started to claim that it filed the Shipping Bills/Bills of Entry solely based on the information provided by the exporters/importers and why such regulations were established for the CBs in the first place. The very purpose of the F category examination, which is required to be cleared by the CB, would have no meaning if the CBs are merely relying on the exporters/importers' information without proper scrutiny and the regulations' objective would seem 7 C/50820 OF 2025 weakened. It implies that it was not an unintentional lapse rather deliberate act which has caused loss to government exchequer. 8.10.4 In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is clear that Customs Broker failed to fulfill his obligation as stipulated in the Regulation (d) of CBLR, 2018. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that Customs Broker had violated the provision of Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR 2018‖.
13. The allegation in the SCN and the finding in the impugned order is that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(d) by not advising Utkarsh International to follow the provisions of the Act and Rules. It must be established by the department through some credible evidence that the appellant had not advised the exporter. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced in the SCN to this effect. The appellant, on the other hand, produced a letter from the exporter Utkarsh International confirming that they were advised by the appellant to follow the Act and Rules. The Commissioner, however, dismissed this letter of the exporter on the ground that ‗it is not specified in the authorization what type of due diligence was exercised and the nature of the advice provided by the CB to the exporter'. Nothing in the CBLR requires any letter to be produced at all by the Customs Broker, let alone, require any letter, if produced, to specify in it what type of due diligence was exercised and the nature of the advice provided.
14. All that is required is that the customs broker should advise his client to follow the Act and Rules and if the department holds that the appellant had not done so, it is for the department to prove. The department has not proved that 8 C/50820 OF 2025 the appellant had not advised the exporter through even a tiny bit of evidence. Although the appellant was not required to produce any evidence, it still produced a letter from the exporter that it had advised. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that the appellant had not advised is baseless and needs to be set aside.
15. The findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order insofar as this regulation is concerned are reproduced below:
―8.11.1 Regulation 10 (e) requires the Customs Broker in 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.
8.11.2 M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. submission is that true meaning of Obligation 10 (e) ascertain/ensure correctness of information with due diligence and impart/give to client to clearance of cargo. Nowhere written in writing or what information. So, where is the proof that CB has not given correct information for clearance of cargo. No such points were recorded nor any evidence/proof examined and relied upon.
8.11.3 I, again, disagree with the submission of M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. The issue is not whether the CB provided incorrect information to the exporter, but rather the issue is that the CB imparted correct and accurate information to the exporter or not. The answer is clear; the CB did not exercise due diligence, especially considering that RMG industry is a sensitive industry and exporter of the same is risky. Instances have come to my notice where goods were purchased from M/s Stag Expo by Exporter, M/s Utkarsh International. However, M/s Stag Expo was registered under HSN 7419 for dealing in aluminium plates, sheets and strips, yet it sup-plied ready-made garments (RMG) to Utkarsh International. This discrepancy indicates that the supply 9 C/50820 OF 2025 chain for this export was fictitious. Had the Customs Broker exercised due diligence and remained vigilant, the mis-declaration could have been detected in time.
8.11.4 Therefore, I find that the Customs Broker failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the accuracy of the declaration and chose to remain idle, leading to a substantial loss to the Government Exchequer. Thus, I have no hesitation in concluding that the Customs Broker violated the provisions of Regulation 10
(e) of the CBLR, 2018‖.
16. This finding of the Commissioner contradicts his own finding with respect to Regulation 10(d) in which he held that the appellant had not advised the exporter at all. With respect to Regulation 10(e), his finding is that the appellant had provided incorrect information or inaccurate information which shows complete non application of mind.
17. The case of the appellant is that the SCN does not say what incorrect information was provided to the exporter by the appellant. We find that neither the SCN nor the impugned order states as to what incorrect or inaccurate information was provided by the appellant to the exporter. Therefore, the finding in the impugned order that the appellant violated Regulation 10 (e) is completely baseless and needs to be set aside.
18. The findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order regarding this regulation are reproduced below:
10 C/50820 OF 2025 ―8.12.1 The Regulation 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.
8.12.2 M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. submission is that CBLR does not specify collecting KYC on mail/visit of premises etc. The verification can be done with ID no. of IEC, GSTIN to identify the functioning of the client on the declared address through respective reliable Portals. We hereby confirmed that Import Export Licence (IEC) number, Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) was verified from respective Portal of Government India and confirmed Identity and declared address, further other proof and KYC such as Rent Agreement, Electricity Bill, Aadhar Card of Proprietor, PAN card, AD code letter from Bank, GSTIN certificate and IEC certificate copy were also collected.
8.12.3 I concur with the CB's submission to the extent that the documents were submitted and that the Customs Broker (CB) conducted verifications regarding the Importer Exporter Code (IEC), Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), and the identity of the client.
8.12.4 However, I find that the NCTC-DGARM, Mumbai report confirmed that the Exporter, M/s Utkarsh International firm was non-existent at the time of physical verification. This raised a critical question: how can it be said that the Customs Broker (CB) properly verified the functioning of its client at the declared address? I also observe that the signature put by the exporter namely Shri Mehfooz Alam on the statement dated 20.01.2023 recorded during investigation by SIIB, ACC, Export and PAN Card differs significantly from the one on the authorization with no date, indicating possible fabrication.
8.12.5 Additionally, I find that no date has been mentioned on the authorization received from the Exporter, M/s Utkarsh International and submitted by the CB before me. These facts collectively indicate fraudulent activity in the facilitation of the shipping bill and an attempt to take undue benefits from the government exchequer in collusion with the exporter.
11 C/50820 OF 2025 8.12.6 I, also, observe that the IEC Code or GSTIN is issued to importers/exporters upon the physical verification of addresses, as and when required. However, it does not guarantee that the importer/exporter will continue to operate from the registered address, nor does it imply that the department monitors whether the importer/exporter remains at the declared address. Customs Brokers (CBs) cannot absolve themselves of responsibility merely by asserting that the IEC or GSTIN has been verified through online mode without further ensuring that the importer/exporter is operating business at the declared address. 8.12.7 In the present case, the Customs Broker (CB) has facilitated the customs clearance of the said Exporter, M/s Utkarsh International which were non-existing at the time of physical verification and the goods were found to be mis-declared. Then, the question arises as to whether only IEC or GSTIN can be considered reliable, independent, and authentic documents, data, or information for verifying the functioning of the client at the declared address and whether they are sufficient for such verification. It is also a fact that while the identity of a client may be confirmed based on the IEC number, GSTIN, Voter ID card, etc., these documents cannot be considered reliable and authentic for verifying the actual functioning of the client. This is because entities may change their addresses without informing the government, often with the intent to defraud the exchequer as happened in present matter.
8.12.8 In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, I find that the activity exercised by the CB, happens to be substantial loss to the Government Exchequer, hence, in my view it apparently, constitute fulfilment of Regulation 10 (n)‖.
19. The allegation in the SCN and the finding in the impugned order that the exporter did not exist at all at the registered premises is completely contrary to the finding in the impugned order with respect to Regulation 10(e) according to which the appellant had provided incorrect information or 12 C/50820 OF 2025 inaccurate information, which would be impossible if the exporter had not existed at all. It is also contradictory to the finding in the impugned order with respect to Regulation 10(d) which records that the exporter had given an authorization and indicated in it that they have been advised to follow the Act and Rules but had not given the details of the advice given by the appellant.
20. Thus, according to the impugned order, the exporter did not exist at all and therefore, the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n). Despite being non-existent, according to the impugned order, the exporter received from the appellant incorrect or inaccurate information and therefore, the appellant violated Regulation 10(e).
21. We now proceed to examine the scope of the obligation of the customs broker under Regulation 10(n). It requires the customs broker to verify the 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. This obligation can be broken down as follows:
a) Verify the correctness of IEC number
b) Verify the correctness of GSTIN
c) Verify the identity of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information
d) Verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information 13 C/50820 OF 2025
22. Of the above, (a) and (b) require verification of the documents which are issued by the Government departments. The IEC number is issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade and the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs of the Government of India or under the Governments of State or Union territory. The question which would arise is does the Customs Broker have to satisfy himself that these documents or their copies given by the client were indeed issued by the concerned government officers or does it mean that the Customs Broker has to ensure that the officers have correctly issued these documents. In our considered view, obligations under Regulation 10(n) of CBLR cannot be read to mean the latter as it would amount to treating the Customs Broker as one who is responsible to oversee and ensure the correctness of the actions by the Government officers. It would also mean that the Regulations under the Customs Act prevail over the actions under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 under which the IEC is issued by DGFT and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act(or state GST Act) under which the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers which is not a correct construction of the legal provisions.
23. Therefore, the verification of certificates part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker is fully satisfied as long as it satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were, indeed issued by the concerned officers. This can 14 C/50820 OF 2025 be done through online verification, comparing with the original documents, etc. and does not require an investigation into the documents by the Customs Broker. The presumption is that a certificate or registration issued by an officer or purported to be issued by an officer is correctly issued. Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872 requires even Courts to presume that every certificate which is purported to be issued by the Government officer to be genuine. It reads as follows:
―79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. The Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer in the State of Jammu and Kashmir who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government.
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.‖
24. The onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers have correctly issued the certificate or registration. Of course, if the Customs Broker comes to know that its client has obtained these certificates through fraud or misrepresentation, nothing prevents it from bringing such details to the notice of Customs officers for their consideration and action as they deem fit. However, the Customs Broker cannot sit in judgment over the certificate or registration issued by a Government officer so long as it is 15 C/50820 OF 2025 valid. In this case, there is no doubt or evidence that the IEC and the GSTIN were issued by the officers. So, there isno violation as far as the documents are concerned.
25. The third obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the identity of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. In other words, he should know who the client is and the client cannot be some fictitious person. This identity can be established by independent, reliable, authentic:
a) documents;
b) data; or
c) information
26. Any of the three methods can be employed by the Customs Broker to establish the identity of his client. It is not necessary that it has to only collect information or launch an investigation. So long as it can find some documents which are independent, reliable and authentic to establish the identity of his client, this obligation is fulfilled. If a document is issued by any other person not interested in the relationship of the client and the Customs Broker, it can be called independent. But it should also be reliable and authentic and not one issued by any Tom, Dick and Harry. Documents such as PAN card issued by the Income Tax, driving licence issued by the RTO, Election voter card issued by the Election Commission, the passport issued by the Passport Officer, etc., certainly qualify as such documents as none of these departments have any interest in the relationship between the client and the Customs Broker 16 C/50820 OF 2025 and these documents are presumed to be authentic and reliable having been issued by the Government officers.
However, these are not the only documents the Customs Broker could obtain; documents issued by any other officer of the Government or even private parties (so long as they qualify as independent, reliable and authentic) could meet this requirement. While obtaining documents is probably the easiest way of fulfilling this obligation, the Customs broker can also, as an alternative, fulfill this obligation by obtaining data or information. In the factual matrix of this case, we are fully satisfied that the appellant has fulfilled this part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n).
27. The fourth and the last obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents or data or information so long as it is reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. Customs formations are only in a few places while exporters or importers could be from any part of the country and they hire the services of the Customs Brokers. Besides the fact that no such obligation is in Regulation 10(n), it will be extremely difficult, if not, totally impossible, for the Customs Broker to physically visit the premises of each of its 17 C/50820 OF 2025 clients for verification. The Regulation, in fact, gives the option of verifying using documents, data or information. If there are authentic, independent and reliable documents or data or information to show that the client is functioning at the declared address, this part of the obligation of the Customs Broker is fulfilled. If there are documents issued by the Government Officers which show that the client is functioning at the address, it would be reasonable for the Customs Broker to presume that the officer is not wrong and that the client is indeed, functioning at that address. In this case, we find that the GSTIN was even according to the SCN, issued by the officers at the address of the client on 7.2.2022 and later, based on the report of DGARM dated 19.12.2022, it was cancelled retrospectively from 17.2.2022.
28. If the GST officers had issued benami GSTIN, it is the officer who issued it alone who can be held to account and not the customs broker or anyone else who trusts the GSTIN so issued by the officer including the Customs Broker.
29. The officer who issued the benami GSTIN or his successor in office who conducted the physical verification (although no verification report is enclosed with the SCN) is responsible for issuing such benami GSTIN and any consequential losses and not the Customs Brokers who trusted the GSTIN issued by the officer.
18 C/50820 OF 2025
30. The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulations 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete as discussed in the above paragraph, if the client moves to a new premises and does not inform the authorities or does not get his documents amended, such act or omission of the client cannot be held against the Customs Broker. Of course, if the Customs Broker was aware that the client has moved and continues to file documents with the wrong address, it is a different matter.
31. When a Government officer issues a certificate or registration with an address to an exporter, it is not for the Customs Broker to sit in judgment over such a certificate. The Customs Broker cannot be faulted for trusting the certificates issued by a government officer. It is a different matter if documents are not authentic and are either forged by the Customs Broker or the Customs Broker has reason to believe that the documents submitted to him were forged. It has been held by the High Court of Delhi in Kunal Travels9 that ―the CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect of clearance of goods through customs house and in that process only such authorized personnel of
9. 2017 (3) TMI 1494- Delhi High Court 19 C/50820 OF 2025 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....."
(emphasis supplied)."
32. In view of the above, the finding in the impugned order that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) cannot be sustained. Consequently, revocation of the appellant's Customs Broker's licence, forfeiture of its security deposit and the penalty of Rs 50,000/- imposed on it cannot be sustained.
33. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
The Customs Brokers licence of the appellant shall be restored forthwith on production of a copy of this order.
(Order pronounced in open court on 02/04/2026.) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P.V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) PK