The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi, has overturned the revocation of a customs broker licence, holding that customs brokers are not liable for continuous monitoring of clients once official verification is done.
The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeal against the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi, who in June 2021 had revoked the licence, forfeited the ₹75,000 security deposit, and imposed a ₹50,000 penalty.
The action stemmed from an investigation by the Directorate General of Analytics & Risk Management (DGARM), which identified several exporters as “non-existent” based on GST data analysis. It was alleged that the customs broker had facilitated exports for such entities without proper verification.
Out of 89 flagged exporters, verification reports in the show cause notice covered only four. The broker denied handling shipments for three and admitted to processing exports only for M/s Lalit Enterprises.
For M/s Lalit Enterprises, GST records showed valid registration and return filing until August 2019, with the last export handled in February 2019. Department officers conducted physical verification nearly a year later, in February 2020, and found the exporter had vacated the premises.
CESTAT held that this did not prove the exporter was fictitious at the time of the transactions, noting, “The responsibility of the Customs Broker does not include keeping continuous surveillance on the client.”
The bench reaffirmed its earlier position in Mauli Worldwide Logistics that Regulation 10(n) requires verification through reliable, independent, and authentic documents, not compulsory physical visits. Once official documents like GSTIN and IEC are verified, the broker’s obligation is considered fulfilled.
The Tribunal ruled that the customs broker had complied with all verification requirements and set aside the Commissioner’s order, restoring the licence with consequential relief.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Brightline (C&F) Agency Versus Customs Commissioner
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51157 OF 2022
Date: 13.08.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Mukesh Kumar Shukla
Read More: B.Sc. Nursing Counseling for 2025-26 Put on Hold by Rajasthan High Court Pending NOC Clearance
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
