Kerala High Court
M/S Cappithan Agencies vs Commissioner Of Customs on 12 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:41197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025/22ND JYAISHTA, 1947
CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2024
AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER NO.20421/2024 DATED 22.05.2024 OF THE CUSTOMS,
EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT:
M/S CAPPITHAN AGENCIES
CCBA BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, I.R. ROAD,
WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009, REPRESENTED
BY MANAGING PARTNER BRUCE THADATHIL, AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O.LATE C.N. CHANDY, R/O.KAIPPALLIL THADATHIL,
KOTTATHUR P.O., AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689614.
BY ADV.SRI.M.A.BABY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND,
COCHIN, PIN - 682009
BY ADV.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
BY SRI.R.HARISHANKAR, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON 12.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:41197
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Customs Appeal impugns the final order dated 22.05.2024
of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT],
Bangalore in Customs Appeal No.20049/2023.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Customs Appeal
are as follows:
The appellant was a Customs Broker and holder of license
No.102 issued by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 7 of
the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation [CBLR], 2013. The said
license was valid upto 05.01.2027. With a view to operate and
supervise the activities of the appellant, the appellant had designated
G-Card holders who are authorised persons to ensure compliance with
the statutory requirements and to ensure smooth running of the
activities in the Cochin Port. The appellant states that it would also
supervise the G-Card holders by conducting random checks of the
documents and other details furnished by the importer/exporter.
3. In relation to an import of a consignment that was declared
as Diplomatic Cargo, an inspection was conducted by the Officers of
the Preventive Department of the Cochin Commissionerate on
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:41197
05.07.2021, and a quantity of 30.245 kgs. of gold was seized from the
consignment declared as Diplomatic Cargo, and in respect of which,
Bill of Entry No.8045238 dated 01.07.2020 had been filed by the
appellant. Immediately thereafter, an offence report dated 08.10.2021
was filed with the Commissionerate, placing reliance on which, a show
cause notice No.21 of 2011 dated 28.12.2021 was served on the
appellant under Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR, 2018. By the show
cause notice, the appellant was directed to show cause as to why its
customs broker license should not be revoked under Rule 14 of the
CBLR, 2018 on account of violation under Regulation 10(a), (d), (e), (m)
and (n) respectively and penalty should not be imposed on the
appellant under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2018. Although the
appellant furnished a preliminary reply to the show cause notice, the
Commissioner appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry in
the matter and furnish a report before him.
4. On receipt of the notice from the Enquiry Officer, the
appellant appeared before him and made his submissions against the
allegations in the show cause notice. The Enquiry Officer thereafter
submitted his enquiry report dated 29.07.2022, and a copy of the same
was sent to the appellant for its comments. The appellant later
submitted a detailed representation against the enquiry report and
thereafter appeared before the Commissioner for a hearing. The
Commissioner, however, rejected the explanation offered by the
appellant and confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. By his
order dated 25.10.2022, the Commissioner revoked the customs
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:41197
brokers license issued to the appellant with immediate effect, and
imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 14 read with 18(1)
of the CBLR, 2018. The Commissioner also directed a forfeiture of the
entire amount of security deposit that had been paid by the appellant.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the appellant
preferred the appeal before the CESTAT. The Tribunal, on a detailed
consideration of the appeal, dismissed the appeal by confirming the
order of the Commissioner. In the present appeal, the appellant
impugns the final order of the Tribunal.
6. We have heard Sri.Baby M.A., the learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.R.Harishankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent Department.
7. In the appeal before us, the appellant raises the following
substantial questions of law:
"a. Whether Adjudicating authority had committed grave error by not
extending an opportunity for cross examination of Customs officers
Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR, 2018 since 33 consignments were cleared
through Diplomatic Channel by claiming the benefit of duty exemption;
b. Whether Adjudication authority had committed grave error by not
producing relevant documents to the appellant at the time of issuance of
Show Cause Notice;
c. Whether the Adjudication authority and the Appellate Authority
had committed grave error by not adhering the time frame depicted as
per Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018;
d. Whether the Appellate Authority had committed grave error by not
considering that the Annexure B is issued beyond the scope of Show
Cause Notice;
e. Whether the Appellate Authority had committed grave error by not
considering the Judicial Discipline;
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:41197
f. Whether the Adjudication authority had committed grave error by
issuing Annexure B Order-in-Original without studying the relevant
documents."
8. On the issue of non-extension of an opportunity to cross
examine Customs Officers, the Appellate Tribunal found as follows in
paragraph 10 of its order:
"10. The third issue is with regard to refusal of cross-examination by
the Commissioner. Regulation 17(4) reads:
"The Customs Broker shall be entitled to cross-examine the
persons examined in support of the grounds forming the
basis of the proceedings, and where the Deputy
Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of
Customs declines permission to examine any person on the
grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he
shall record his reasons in writing for so doing."
10.1 With reference to cross-examination, the appellant in their interim
reply did not ask for any cross-examination, however, in their final reply
dated 24.8.2022 to the notice, 'the appellant had requested for cross-
examination of Customs Officers and staff who had cleared the
consignment. It may be pertinent to mention here that these officers
cleared the consignment as Diplomatic Cargo based on the records filed
before them and therefore, there is absolutely no role played by them.
The Commissioner at Para 15 of the impugned order clearly states 'I have
called for and examined the interim reply and do not find any request let
alone repeated requests for cross examination. He also admits that cross
examination of witnesses is to be mandatorily given by the inquiry officer
under regulation 17 (4) where they are connected to the grounds forming
the basis of the proceedings. In the instant case I find that the said
officers have not given statements and their conduct is in nowhere
relevant to the case at hand viz; the question whether the CB has flouted
any of the obligations cast upon them.' Relying on the Supreme Court's
decision in the case of Harinderpal Singh Shergill vs. Commissioner:
2010 (259) ELT A 19 (SC), he states that the request for cross-
examination of 7 personnel who have cleared the Bills of Entry only goes
to prove that they want the proceedings to be delayed. The Officers who
have cleared the consignment have done so based on the declaration that
is a diplomatic cargo. Only on investigation and opening the consignment
it was known that that fold was concealed in the cargo that was declared
as diplomatic cargo. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree
with the above observations of the Commissioner which appears to be
only delay tactics."
9. We find the said reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal to be
unassailable more so when the appellant does not have a case that the
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:41197
statement of any particular person was relied upon in the show cause
notice that was issued to the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant was given an opportunity to file a detailed representation
against the enquiry report that was made available to him as part of
the adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner. Under the
said circumstances, the appellant cannot be heard to contend that he
had a right to cross-examine even other persons such as Officers and
staff of the Customs Department who did not have a role to play in the
breach of obligations alleged against the appellant under the CBLR.
10. As regards the contention regarding time bar under
Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018, the finding of the Appellate
Tribunal is at paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which reads as
follows:
"7. The first issue is whether the notice was time barred.
Regulation 17 (1) of CBLR reads:-
(1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall issue a
notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from
the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is
proposed to revoke the license or impose penalty requiring the said Customs
Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or
Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of
defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker
desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or
Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
As per the Regulation 17(1) of CBLR 2018, the notice is to be
issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. In
the instant case, the offence report dated 8.10.2021 was issued by the
Customs Preventive Commissionerate Cochin. The show-cause notice
was issued on 28.12.2021 much before the 90 days' time limit prescribed
under the Regulations.
Regulation 17(2): The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of
the written statement from the Customs Broker, or where no such
statement has been received within the time-limit specified in the notice
referred to in sub-regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of
Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, to
inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs Broker.
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:41197
Regulation 17(3): The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant
Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall, in the course of
inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral
evidence as may be relevant or material to the inquiry in regard to the
grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and he may also put any
question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs
Broker, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position.
Regulation 17(5): At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy
Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the
case may be, shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording
his findings thereon submit the report within a period of ninety days
from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1).
As seen from the above sub-clauses of the CBLR, 2018, an inquiry
officer has to be appointed and the inquiry officer needs to submit the
report within 90 days from the date of issue of the notice. The appellant
is referring to the inquiry report which needs to be submitted within 90
days from the date of issue of the notice. What is relevant here is the
whether the notice is issued within 90 days from the date of the receipt of
the offence report and the decisions relied upon by the Counsel is
regarding the delay in issuing the notices after 90 days from the date of
receipt of the offence report and not applicable in the present set of facts
where notice is not time barred. With regard to delay in filing the inquiry
report, the Commissioner notes that the Regulation also suggests
suspension of the license within 90 days of the inquiry report but no such
action was taken and the appellant continued to operate for the entire
period following the alleged offence being committed. In other words, his
right to pursue his vocation has not been prejudiced in any way by the
alleged delay beyond the period laid down under regulation 17(5). It is
also noted by the Commissioner that there has been delay on the part of
the appellant in furnishing response to the show-cause notice by filing
only an interim reply and insisting on unjustified cross-examination of the
officers who were nowhere concerned with the case."
11. In particular, we find that the specific contention raised by
the appellant in terms of Regulation 17(5) with regard to the
submission of the enquiry report being beyond the period of 90 days
from the date of issuance of notice under Regulation 17(1) was dealt
with by the Appellate Tribunal in a practical sense, and on finding that
in as much as there was no suspension of the license of the appellant,
there was no prejudice caused to the appellant inasmuch as he had
been permitted to carry on his activities as a customs broker, and
therefore, the 90 days period envisaged in Regulation 17(5) had to be
seen only as directory and not mandatory in the peculiar circumstances
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:41197
that arose in this case. We therefore do not see any illegality or
impropriety in the said finding of the Appellate Tribunal.
12. With regard to the contention of the appellant that he had
not been issued with the relevant documents at the time of issuance of
the show cause notice, we are of the view, as rightly found by the
Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 9 of its order, that as per the
Regulations, the appellant was entitled to receive only those
documents, that were mentioned in the show cause notice and the
enquiry report that was drawn up by the Enquiry Officer during the
adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner. Since it is not in
dispute that the appellant received both the show cause notice and the
enquiry report and that he was afforded an opportunity of filing
representations against both, we fail to see how the appellant can
sustain a contention regarding violation of natural justice.
13. The remaining contentions with regard to the procedure
followed by the authorities while adjudicating the matter, have been
dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 11 to 13 of its order,
which read as follows:
"11. The final issue is whether the appellant has violated any of the
provisions of the CBLR, 2018. The relevant sub-clauses of Regulation 10 are
reproduced below.
Regulation 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;
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:41197
(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;
(m) discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and
efficiency and without any delay;
(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;
Sl. Bills of Consignor details as per Consignor details mentioned
No. Entry/ AWB in the Bills of Entry
Date
1 7987721/ Saleem Yousuf Hasan Albeshar Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
24.06.2020 Abu Dhabi
2 8019046/ Faizal Fareed, Dubai Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
27.06.2020 Abu Dhabi
3 8045238/ Faizal Fareed, Dubai Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
01.07.2020 Abu Dhabi
As seen from the Table, the Bills of Entry were filed to make it appear as if
the consignor in these cases was 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs Abu Dhabi'
whereas the actual consignor was Shri Saleem, Shri Yousuf Hasan Albe and
Shri Faizal Fareed, Dubai. This was clearly evident from the airway bills
relating to the respective Bills of Entry No.7987721 dated 24.06.2020,
No.8019046 dated 27.06. 2020 and No.8045238 dated 01.07.2020. The
cargo whose consignor is mis-declared as the 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs' to
make it appear genuine for automated system for clearance as Diplomatic
Cargo cannot be considered as oversight when the mistake is occasioned by
the appellant who is well aware of the procedures. Such repeated mis-
declarations which have resulted in smuggling of gold into India cannot be
considered as oversight as claimed by the Branch Manager of the appellant
in his statement. The appellant has also alleged that the above facts were
not part of the notice issued to him. It is necessary to highlight here the fact
that in dealing with the Customs broker with regard to the license first an
offence report is issued which only specifies the allegations in H brief.
Thereafter, a notice is issued and an inquiry officer is appointed to look into
the allegations and to give an opportunity to the appellants to defend
himself. Hence, the inquiry report is a detailed report which provides the
allegations, the documents relied upon and the defences provided by the
accused and based on this, the order is issued. Therefore, in dealing with
the CHALR it is the offence report and the inquiry report are the two
significant documents that bring about the offence committed by the
appellant.
12. The premises of the Appellant was searched and certain documents
were recovered with regard to the above consignment. A statement was
recorded from Shri Sarith on 06.07.2020 who stated that he went to the
Dubai in 2007 and returned in 2016 and he worked as Public Relation
Officer in UAE Consulate, Trivandrum from 2016 to 2019 and thereafter,
resigned due to personal reasons. He admitted that he approached the
appellant for clearance of the consignment and paid them in cash to clear
the same. A statement dated 07.07.2020 was recorded from Shri Godfrey
Prathap, Branch Manager of the appellant who stated that he filed the Bill
of Entry for clearance of the above goods as Diplomatic Cargo (personal
effects) by availing the exemption from payment of customs duty under
Notification No. 3/1957 dated 08.01.1957. He Submitted that the delivery
order issued by M/s. Emirates mentioned the cargo as Diplomatic Cargo
and information of the said cargo was received over phone from Shri Sarith
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:41197
who identified himself as former Public Relation Officer and was engaged in
personal capacity as protocol officer for Shri Rashed Khamis Alimusaiqri Al
Ashmei, Consulate General of the UAE, Trivandrum in whose name the said
carton had arrived. He was also informed by Shri Sarith that no documents
will be required except the authorisation letter and the copy of the airway
bill and they will be submitted personally by him as soon as the same is
received and the documents were personally handed over by Shri Sarith.
The airway bill showed the consignor as Shri Faisal Fareed and the
consignee as Shri Rashed Khamis Alimusaiqri Al Ashmei, Consulate General
of the UAE, Trivandrum. He admitted that the Bill of Entry was filed online
showing the consignor as 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs Abu Dhabi UAE'
instead of what was mentioned in the airway bill on the instructions of Shri
Sarith. He also stated that one of his clearing staff Shri Raveendran had
informed him that Shri Sarith is 'not working for UAE Consulate but is
engaged for personal work for the diplomats and there was no written
communication regarding the fact that Shri Sarith is no longer employed
with the Consulate and the payments used to be received by the Consulate
through their bank account.
13. From the investigations, it is proved that the appellant had cleared
21 consignments on behalf of UAE Consulate as Diplomatic Cargo and
further, the investigations proved that there was a syndicate operating for
smuggling the gold. From the investigations and various statements and
from the appellants own statement, it is proved that they were aware of the
fact that Shri Sarith was no more with the Consulate. The appellant had
failed to verify the authenticity of the documents received from Shri Sarith
who was not an employee of the UAE Consulate, Trivandrum and also failed
to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information related
to the clearance of the cargo. In respect of three Bills of Entry, the appellant
had declared the consignor's details as "Ministry of foreign affairs Abu
Dhabi UAE" wherein the airway bill clearly shows that the goods were
consigned by private individuals and the invoices and packing list were also
not filed with the Bills of shows a mala fide intention of the appellant Entry
which clearly shows a m and collusion with the smuggling syndicate, thus,
abetting in the smuggling of 136.828 kgs. of gold including the seized
consignment of 30.245 kgs of gold. The appellant as a Customs Broker as
per Regulation 10(d) was not only required to advise the client to comply
with the provisions of the Act but also required to report such non-
compliance to the Customs. As rightly argued by the Revenue, the appellant
knew that Shri Sarith was no more with the UAE Consulate and did have
knowledge that the consignor was not the 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs' but
neither advised the client nor apprised the department which is nothing but
violation of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. The appellant was
responsible for allowing smuggling of gold concealed in the personal effects
declared as Diplomatic Cargo. He failed to guide his client and to alert
Customs and instead ended up facilitating the smuggling of gold, thus, his
actions of omission and commission violates Regulation 10(d) and 10(e)."
14. We might also add that the antecedents of the appellant
were taken into consideration by the authorities below while taking a
conscious decision to revoke his license notwithstanding that a penalty
of Rs.50,000/- had also been imposed on him under the Regulations. At
the time of hearing of the appeal, we had sought for a report from the
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:41197
Commissioner asking him to explain the compelling reasons for the
Commissionerate to take a view that the license issued to the appellant
under the CBLR, 2018 must remain revoked. We had sought for the
said affidavit since we were initially of the view that the appellant
having functioned as a broker under the Regulations for a long period
of time, and having suffered the effects of a revocation for over four
years during the pendency of the proceedings, the Department would
perhaps take a lenient view in the matter of a continued revocation of
the license. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner
by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs wherein, the following is
stated at paragraphs 3 to 7:
"3) I respectfully submit that appellant being a Customs Broker was
involved in clearance of diplomatic consignments on behalf of UAE
consulate. A Customs Broker is a company contracted to make sure the
customs declaration is correct, duties and taxes are provided accurately,
and payment is received so that the goods can transit across borders
smoothly without disruption. License is issued to customs broker after
satisfying prescribed eligibility criteria and various conditions as laid down
in regulation 5 of CBLR 2018 and after clearing the oral and written
examination under regulation 6 of CBLR, 2018. Further, after remitting the
statutory fee, license is granted under regulation 7 after the applicant
successfully enter into a bond in Form D and where specified a surety bond
in Form E for due observance of these regulations and furnish a bank
guarantee or a postal security or National Saving Certificate or a fixed
deposit receipt issued by a nationalized bank in the name of Principal
Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as the case may be
for an amount of Rs. Five Lakhs for carrying out the business as a Customs
Broker.
4) I respectfully submit that in the instant case, the petitioner had filed
Bills of Entry to make it appear as if the consignor in at least three cases
was shown as 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abudhabi' whereas the actual
consignors happen to be Mr. Saleem Yousuf Hasan Albe, Mr. Faizal Fareed.
Dubai and Mr. Faizal Fareed, Dubai as was evident from the Air way Bills
relating respectively to Bills of Entry 7987721 dated 24.06.2020, 8019046
dated 27.06.2020 and 8045238 dated 01.07.2020. Further, the petitioner
had filed the Bills of Entry for clearance of the diplomatic cargo without
Invoices and Packing lists accompanying the same. The act of the Customs
Broker mis-declaring the consignor details as 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Abudhabi' to make it appear as genuine diplomatic cargo for the Automated
Risk Management System of the Customs to facilitate the clearance of the
cargo, establishes mens rea of the Customs Broker.
5) I respectfully submit that from the voluntary statements of noticees
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 12 ::
2025:KER:41197
no: 2, 3, 4 in SCN No.29/2020-21 dated 16-06-2021 of the Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive), Cochin viz. Smt. Swapna Prabha Suresh, Shri
Sandeep HN, Shri Ramees K.T, and especially Shri Godfrey Prathap of M/s.
Cappithan Agencies under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is
evident that the appellant was aware that Shri Sarith was no longer an
employee of the UAE consulate. Further, there were instances wherein
appellant were authorized directly by the UAE consulate to handle their
Customs related work and in many other instances the Consulate has
authorized Shri Sarith to clear their Shipments who had in turn authorized
the appellant. If the appellant had been a bonafide and genuine Customs
Broker having in his knowledge that Shri Sarith was no longer with UAE
consulate would have clearly noticed the discrepancies in the patterns of
authorizations and would have communicated his apprehensions to the
Customs and would have tried to get clarity in the matter. However, the
appellant had neither taken any efforts to get the same clarified nor
informed the Customs of the said irregularities.
6) I respectfully submit that the appellant as a Customs Broker
occupies a very important position in the Custom House and in the Customs
clearance chain. The Customs Broker is supposed to safeguard the interest
of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is placed in Customs
Brokers especially by the department to discharge his duties with utmost
sincerity and genuineness so as to ensure all the regulations are complied
with. As such, the appellant failed to discharge his duties as envisioned
under the CBLR, 2018 that resulted in illicit smuggling of 167.073 kgs of
foreign origin gold in the consignments that were cleared as diplomatic
cargo. The above lapse of appellant in their duties has rightly been
construed as abatement to the smuggling of gold into the Country in Order-
in-Original No COC-CUSTM-PRV-COM-04-2023-24 dated 31.10.2023 issued
by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) in which penalty of Rs. 4 crores has
been imposed on the Customs Broker under Section 112(a) & (b) of the
Customs Act 1962. These actions on part of the appellant are grave
economic offences which can only be addressed by the department with
stringent actions against the appellant, a Customs Broker, under Customs
Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
7) I respectfully submit that the proceedings initiated against the
appellant in previous instances under CBLR, 2018 are independent of the
present issue at hand and the same were concluded under the relevant
provisions after due process of law based on the facts in respective case.
The current order of the department was passed after due consideration of
the facts of the case based on cogent evidence of the appellant's mens rea
in tampering with the Consignor's details and not disclosing all the facts
before the Customs authorities which was also clearly brought out by the
accused involved in the smuggling syndicate."
15. Although the learned counsel for the appellant brought to
our notice a recent order of the CESTAT that allowed an appeal
preferred by the appellant against an earlier order imposing penalty on
it for violating the provisions of the Regulations, we feel the same may
not be of much avail to the appellant in the instant appeal. The
important aspect that requires to be taken note of in such cases is that
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 13 ::
2025:KER:41197
the relationship between the Customs Department and the Customs
Broker appointed in terms of the Regulations is essentially one of trust.
Once that trust is broken, and the Customs Broker ceases to inspire the
confidence of the Customs Department in relation to his functioning, he
loses the right to seek a reinstatement of his license under the
Regulations. In the light of the specific stand taken by the Customs
Department in its affidavit, we feel that the instances of breach of the
Regulations, coupled with the fact that the recent instances where a
breach was occasioned, were in connection with the smuggling of huge
quantities of gold, we do not see this as a fit case for interfering with
the impugned order of the Tribunal that upholds the revocation of the
license of the appellant.
Thus, we dismiss this Customs Appeal, by upholding the
impugned order of the Tribunal and answering the questions of law
raised against the appellant and in favour of the Department.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
prp/
Cust. A.No.1/24 :: 14 ::
2025:KER:41197
APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL NO.1/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE - A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.
FO/C/A/20421/2024-CU(DB) DATED 22.05.2024 OF
THE HON'BLE CESTAT, BANGALORE
ANNEXURE - B ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.COC-CUSTOMS-000-COM-
09/2022-23 DATED 25.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN
ANNEXURE - C TRUE COPY OF THE SCN NO. 21/2021 DATED
28.12.2021
ANNEXURE - D TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPLY DATED
10.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT
ANNEXURE - E TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED
29.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE - F TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
24.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT
ANNEXURE - G TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2022
IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.34919 OF 2022
ANNEXURE - H TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED
08.02.2024
ANNEXURE - I TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 26.07.2023 ALONG
WITH DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY AR
ANNEXURE - J TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.COC-
CUSTM-PREV-COM-04-2023-24 ON 31.10.2023
ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(PREVENTIVE), COCHIN
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
