Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 08.06.2026
CESTAT Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty on Customs Broker
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
A recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has significant implications for customs brokers and the enforcement of procedural timelines under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The case involved Bon Freight, a licensed customs broker, and the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Cochin, centering on penalties imposed for alleged regulatory violations.
Background of the Case
Bon Freight, a long-standing customs broker with a valid license, handled export shipments for M/s. Kaliswari Colour Match Works. In 2018, Bon Freight filed two shipping bills for the export of safety matches, classifying the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 36050090. This classification allowed the exporter to claim higher benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS).
Three years later, Tuticorin Customs discovered that the goods should have been classified under CTH 36050010, not 36050090. Upon learning of the misclassification, Bon Freight advised the exporter to repay the excess MEIS benefit (Rs. 1,39,840) and interest (Rs. 47,000), which was duly done.
Sequence of Proceedings
- Initial Show Cause Notice (SCN) and Penalty:
- Tuticorin Customs issued an SCN and, after considering Bon Freight’s reply, imposed penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Bon Freight appealed this order, and the appeal was pending at the time of the CESTAT hearing.
- CBLR Proceedings:
- Separately, Cochin Customs initiated proceedings under CBLR, 2018, issuing an SCN for alleged violations by Bon Freight.
- Bon Freight responded, but the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018, without granting a requested cross-examination or fully considering the broker’s submissions.
Key Legal Issues Examined
The Tribunal focused on three main questions:
- Validity of the Offence Report:
- Whether the SCN issued by Tuticorin Customs could be treated as an ‘offence report’ by Cochin Customs for initiating CBLR proceedings.
- Limitation Period:
- Whether the SCN issued by Cochin Customs was within the 90-day limitation period mandated by Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018.
- Procedural Compliance:
- Whether the penalty imposed under Regulation 18 was tenable given the alleged procedural lapses.
Tribunal’s Findings and Ruling
- Offence Report: The Tribunal accepted that the Tuticorin SCN, containing details of the alleged violations, could serve as an offence report for Cochin Customs.
- Limitation Period: The Tribunal found that the SCN from Cochin Customs was issued beyond the 90-day period from the date of the offence report, violating Regulation 17(1). Citing established legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized strict adherence to this timeline.
- Procedural Lapses: The Tribunal noted that Bon Freight was not given an opportunity for cross-examination and that the procedures under Regulation 17 were not strictly followed. Such non-compliance invalidated the adjudication process.
Outcome
The CESTAT set aside the penalty order against Bon Freight, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief as per law. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and strict compliance with regulatory timelines in customs broker disciplinary proceedings.
Implications for Customs Brokers
- Strict Timelines: Authorities must issue SCNs within 90 days of receiving an offence report, or risk having their actions invalidated.
- Procedural Safeguards: Customs brokers are entitled to due process, including the right to cross-examination and proper consideration of their submissions.
- Legal Precedent: This ruling reinforces the need for adherence to both substantive and procedural requirements in regulatory enforcement.
Conclusion
The CESTAT Bangalore’s decision in favor of Bon Freight is a significant affirmation of procedural rights for customs brokers. It serves as a reminder to both regulators and regulated entities of the critical importance of following due process and statutory timelines in administrative actions.
Source: CESTAT Bangalore
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply