Withholding relied-upon statements violates natural justice and requires fresh adjudication after disclosure.

The appellant, a licensed Customs Broker, held Customs Broker Licence No. CHA/ABD/R/01/2016-17 under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013/2018.

Through an intermediary, M/s. Sun Glory Agency, the appellant handled Bills of Entry filed at Nhava Sheva for M/s. Major Design Decode.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence subsequently alleged that the importer had undervalued premium furniture, failed to declare brands, and evaded customs duty of approximately ₹20 crore; it also alleged that the importer was a dummy entity controlled by another concern.

A show-cause notice dated 28 October 2025 was issued proposing revocation of the appellant’s Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (“CBLR, 2018”).

The notice relied substantially upon statements of the appellant’s G-Card holder, Shri Kailesh Jadhav, and F-Card holder, Shri Shaileshkumar Karmakar, but copies of those statements were not initially supplied despite repeated requests.

The Enquiry Officer found violations of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018.

The Principal Commissioner thereafter revoked the licence, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 on the F-Card holder under Regulation 18.

Whether the revocation of the Customs Broker licence and related penalties could be sustained when the statements relied upon by the Revenue were not supplied to the appellant despite repeated requests?

Whether the proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the appellant’s inability to effectively respond to the relied-upon statements and the enquiry report?

Whether the show-cause notice was issued beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR, 2018?

The Tribunal applied Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, which prescribe the Customs Broker’s duties concerning compliance with customs law, verification and handling of client-related documents, and due diligence regarding the importer.

Regulations 14 and 17 govern revocation of a Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit, and the prescribed disciplinary procedure, while Regulation 18 provides for penalty on specified persons connected with the Customs Broker.

The Tribunal further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a party must be furnished with material relied upon against it and given a meaningful opportunity to answer it.

The Revenue relied on Commissioner of Customs v. K.M. Ganatra & Co., 2016 (2) TMI 478 (SC), concerning serious violations by a Customs Broker; however, the Tribunal resolved the appeal on the separate and threshold ground of breach of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the statements of Shri Karmakar and Shri Jadhav were materially relied upon in both the show-cause notice and the offence report, yet copies were not provided despite several requests.

Without access to those statements, the appellant could not verify, rebut, or explain the alleged admissions concerning lack of importer verification and communication through the intermediary.

The denial of those documents therefore deprived the appellant of a meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations and constituted a clear violation of natural justice.

Since the matter was remanded on this procedural ground, the Tribunal expressly declined to adjudicate the appellant’s other submissions, including the limitation objection under Regulation 17(1) and the merits of the alleged violations.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned adjudication for the purpose of reconsideration and directed the Principal Commissioner to provide copies of the statements of Shri Shaileshkumar Karmakar and Shri Kailesh Jadhav, grant the appellant a reasonable opportunity to make submissions on the show-cause notice and enquiry report, and pass a fresh order after considering the submissions of both sides.

The Tribunal did not decide the limitation objection or the substantive allegations under Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n).