Forged academic qualifications justify revocation of a Customs Broker licence.

The appellant, a proprietorship, applied for a Customs Broker licence in 2014, stating that its proprietor held an MBA from Sikkim Manipal University and a graduation degree from Chaudhary Charan Singh University (CCSU). The graduation certificate was not attached; instead, an affidavit asserting the qualification was submitted. The licence was granted in 2016 after the appellant cleared the examinations.

Following a 2019 complaint, CCSU reported that the particulars of the BA degree and marksheet did not correspond with its records. After re-verification, the Department issued a show-cause notice and commenced proceedings. The Commissioner revoked the licence, forfeited the security deposit and imposed a ₹50,000 penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018; the CESTAT upheld that order.

The appellant appealed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Whether the appellant’s graduation qualification was established as genuine and whether the Department could act on the post-licence verification to revoke the licence.

Whether the failure to permit cross-examination of CCSU officials vitiated the proceedings for breach of natural justice.

Whether the Commissioner could forfeit the security deposit and impose a penalty under the 2018 Regulations in addition to revoking the licence.

Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law warranting interference with the Tribunal’s order.

Regulation 5(h) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires the relevant applicant or representative to be a graduate of a recognised university and to possess one of the specified professional qualifications or equivalent experience.

Regulation 14 authorises revocation of a licence and forfeiture of part or all of the security for specified regulatory failures, while Regulation 17 prescribes the inquiry procedure, including a qualified right to cross-examine persons examined in support of the allegations.

Regulation 18(1) permits a penalty of up to ₹50,000 for contravention of, or failure to comply with, the Regulations; Regulation 18(3) makes such action without prejudice to other action under the Customs Act or other law.

Relying on Kanungo and Co. v. Collector of Customs, (1973) 2 SCC 438, and Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2435, the Court held that cross-examination is not an unfettered right in every proceeding.

The Court noted that the appellant had not submitted the graduation certificate with the licence application and that CCSU’s verification stated that the degree and marksheet particulars did not match its records. The Commissioner and Tribunal had concurrently found that the degree furnished was forged.

The appellant’s reliance on a BBA degree from another university was not raised before the Inquiry Officer, the Commissioner or the Tribunal; the High Court therefore declined to examine that factual contention in an appeal confined to substantial questions of law.

The cross-examination objection had likewise not been raised before the Inquiry Officer or Commissioner, nor pressed before the Tribunal, and the Court observed that cross-examination is not an absolute right.

Given the upheld finding of non-compliance with the educational requirements, forfeiture was within Regulation 14. The penalty under Regulation 18 was also independently available and was not dependent on revocation of the licence.

It dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s order confirming revocation of the licence, forfeiture of the security deposit and the ₹50,000 penalty; the pending application was also disposed of.