ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 03.11.2025
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker License
This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Dehasu Logistics India Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs-Airport & General. The case revolved around the revocation of the customs broker license of the appellant, M/s Dehasu Logistics India Pvt Ltd., and the forfeiture of their security deposit, along with the imposition of penalties. โ The Tribunal, in its final order dated 15th October 2025, set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, citing a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an Order-in-Original dated 12th September 2024, wherein the Commissioner of Customs revoked the customs broker license of M/s Dehasu Logistics India Pvt Ltd. โ The appellant challenged this order before the Tribunal, which initially decided the appeal on 4th November 2024. โ However, the department filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, which directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and deliver a decision before 15th December 2025. โ
Key Arguments by the Appellant โ
The appellant, represented by Advocate, raised two primary arguments:
- Vagueness of the Show Cause Notice: The appellant contended that the show cause notice merely reproduced the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs without specifying the reasons for alleged violations of regulations under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. โ
- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Customs had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without providing reasons for the disagreement or an opportunity for the appellant to submit a representation. โ
Findings of the Inquiry Officer โ
The Inquiry Officer meticulously examined the alleged violations of regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(q), and 13(12) of the CBLR, 2018. The inquiry report concluded that the appellant had not violated any of the provisions and had complied with the regulations. โ Key findings included:
- No discrepancies were found in the export shipments handled by the appellant. โ
- The appellant had advised their client to comply with the Customs Act and related regulations. โ
- The appellant had exercised due diligence and cooperated with customs authorities during investigations. โ
- The appellant had ensured proper conduct of their employees, who were duly approved by the Customs Department. โ
Tribunal’s Observations
The Tribunal noted that while the Commissioner of Customs is not bound to accept the findings of the Inquiry Officer, it is mandatory to communicate the reasons for disagreement to the customs broker and provide an opportunity to respond. โ This principle was upheld in the Delhi High Court judgment in the Him Logistics case, which emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice. โ
In the present case, the Commissioner failed to provide the appellant with the reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, which was in favor of the appellant. โ This procedural lapse led the Tribunal to conclude that the impugned order was in violation of the principles of natural justice. โ
Final Decision
The Tribunal set aside the order dated 12th September 2024, revoking the customs broker license of M/s Dehasu Logistics India Pvt Ltd. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of following due process and ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.โ
Source: CESTAT Delhi
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply