Commissioner Of Customs(Airport And General), New Delhi vs M/S Mauli Worldwide Logistics

Court
Delhi High Court

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 02.11.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010403812025
+ CUSAA 89/2025, CM APPL. 38958/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT AND
GENERAL), NEW DELHI
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC
with Mr. Dhananjay Parth, Adv.

versus

M/S MAULI WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shikha Spra & Mr. Umang
Srivastva, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act,
1963 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 24.02.2025
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the
Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (for brevity ‘the tribunal’).
2. The brief facts are that the appellant/department received an
Analytics Report dated 04.05.2023 (for short ‘the AR’) from the
Additional Director General, NCTC-DGARM, Mumbai, regarding
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:05.11.2026
12:46:18
CUSAA 89/2025 Page 1 of 6

fraudulent exports by non-existent entities. The name of the
respondent appeared in the AR with allegations of violation of the
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (for brevity ‘the 2018
Regulations’) particularly Regulation 10(n) thereof. Pursuant to the
issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 23.08.2023 (for short ‘the
SCN’), an Inquiry Officer (for short ‘IO’) was appointed to inquire
into the allegations contained in the AR and submit a report. Vide
inquiry report dated 15.11.2023, it was concluded that the respondent
had failed to comply with the obligations cast under Regulation 10(n)
of the 2018 Regulations as alleged in the SCN and was liable to action
under the 2018 Regulations.
2.1 Vide Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2024 (for short ‘O-I-O’),
the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General)/Adjudicating
Authority (for short ‘AA’) noted that the AR stated that the exporters
were found to be non-existent. The respondent took a stand that before
processing the consignment, enquiry was conducted at the field level
to verify the existence of the address of the exporters. The undisputed
facts noted by the AA were that the AR did not contain any physical
verification report, the exporters had filed GST returns even after the
period of export and as part of the KYC protocol the respondent had
submitted the IEC and GST registration certificates of the exporters.
2.2 The violation pointed out by the AA was that in the case of a
proprietorship concern, at least two documents prescribed under
Circular No. 09/2010-Cus were required to be submitted by the
exporters. On this basis, it was held that the respondent violated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:05.11.2026
12:46:18
CUSAA 89/2025 Page 2 of 6

Regulation 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations and the Customs Broker
licence was revoked, the security deposit was forfeited and a penalty
of Rs.50,000/- was imposed.
2.3 The respondent succeeded before the tribunal and the order
dated 31.01.2024 passed by the AA was set aside. Hence, the present
appeal.

3. On 12.10.2026, the following substantial question of law was
formulated:
“Whether in the facts and circumstances, the
finding recorded by the tribunal that the PAN card
and Aadhar card produced before the enquiry
officer and were rejected for the reason that the
respondent had not met the exporter is perverse?”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal
erred in setting aside the O-I-O despite the violations of Regulation
10(n) being detailed therein. It is submitted that the reply of the
respondent before the AA indicates that KYC documents of the
exporters were not produced before the AA. The grievance is that the
tribunal erred in considering the KYC documents produced for the
first time before it.
4.1 The submission is that the documents annexed to the reply of
the respondent filed before this Court bear different signatures and do
not match.
5. Per contra , the tribunal recorded findings of fact and that the
scope of interference under Section 130 of the Act is confined to
substantial questions of law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:05.11.2026
12:46:18
CUSAA 89/2025 Page 3 of 6

6. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the
relevant portions of Circular dated 08.04.2010 and the inquiry report:
Circular dated 08.04.2010

Inquiry report

7. The Circular dated 08.04.2010 was modified on 12.02.2015 to
include Aadhaar card as one of the prescribed documents.
8. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of the AR flagging
export transactions by non-existent entities. Pursuant to the AR the
SCN was issued and an IO was appointed. It is an admitted fact that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:05.11.2026
12:46:18
CUSAA 89/2025 Page 4 of 6

the authority preparing the AR had not conducted any physical
verification. The respondent in reply to the SCN claimed that KYC
documents of the exporters were obtained before processing the
consignments, the IEC was verified from the DGFT website, the PAN
from the Income Tax Department website and the GSTIN from the
GST website. The IO concluded that in the absence of verification of
KYC documents from the exporter and failure of respondent to meet
the exporter, there was no proper KYC and Regulation 10(n) of the
2018 Regulations was violated.
9. The Tribunal rightly held that by obtaining the PAN card and
Aadhaar card, the respondent had complied with the Circular dated
08.04.2010 as modified on 12.02.2015. The appeal was allowed
considering that the IO had not rejected the submissions of the
respondent that the PAN card and Aadhaar card along with the
authorisations were submitted. It was further held that these
documents could not have been rejected merely on the ground that the
respondent had failed to meet the exporter more so, when the
department had not alleged that these documents were forged. On the
basis of these factual findings, the tribunal held that there was no
violation of Regulation 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations.
10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that these
KYC documents were produced for the first time before the tribunal is
misconceived. The tribunal did not allow the appeal on the basis of
documents produced before it but on the ground that the very
foundation of the case of the department regarding violation of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:05.11.2026
12:46:18
CUSAA 89/2025 Page 5 of 6

Regulation 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations was not made out in the
absence of finding in the inquiry report that KYC documents were not
produced or were forged. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had
accepted and relied upon the inquiry report.
11. The valiant attempt made by learned counsel for the appellant to
invite us to compare the signatures on the documents annexed to the
reply filed would amount to this Court acting as an appellate authority
on facts rather than exercising its jurisdiction under Section 130 of the
Act.
12. No substantial question of law arises. The conclusion arrived at
by the tribunal is based on factual findings and suffer from no legal or
factual error much less perversity.
13. The appeal is dismissed.
14. The pending application also stands dismissed.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

SHAIL JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026
‘ha’

Reportable: Yes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:05.11.2026
12:46:18
CUSAA 89/2025 Page 6 of 6