PARDEEP KUMAR PRASHAR Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT AND GENERAL)

$~

%

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 18.08.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 21.08.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 21.08.2026

CUSAA 75/2025

PARDEEP KUMAR PRASHAR.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra and Ms.

Shruti Jindal, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT AND

GENERAL).....Respondent

Through: Mr. Akash Verma, SSC CBIC,

with Ms Aanchal Uppal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the Final

Order No. 58517/2024 dated 27.08.2024 [„Impugned Order‟] passed

by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi [„CESTAT‟] in Customs Appeal No. 51712/2021

[DB]. By the Impugned Order, the CESTAT has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the Appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original dated

02.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport &

General), whereby the Appellant‟s Customs Broker licence was

revoked, the entire security deposit of Rs.75,000/- was forfeited and a

[Image: Image23]

penalty of Rs.50,000/-was imposed under the Customs Brokers

Licensing Regulations, 2018 [„CBLR, 2018‟].

The principal question arising for consideration in the present

Appeal is whether the findings recorded by the CESTAT, affirming

the revocation of the Appellant‟s Customs Broker licence, forfeiture

of the security deposit and imposition of penalty, give rise to any

substantial question of law warranting interference by this Court. The

controversy essentially concerns the legal effect of the Appellant‟s

admitted conduct in permitting his Customs Broker licence and

credentials to be used by his G-card holder for consideration and in

filing a Shipping Bill in the name of an exporter without obtaining

authorisation from such exporter.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present

Appeal, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

The Appellant was holding Customs Broker Licence No. R-

94/97, which was stated to have been originally granted in the year

1995 and regularised in the year 1997. The licence was valid during

the period relevant to the present proceedings. The Appellant was

engaged in the business of Customs clearance and was operating inter

alia from the Air Cargo Complex, Export, New Delhi.

The proceedings against the Appellant emanate from an

attempted export of goods under Shipping Bill No. 8904827 dated

12.12.2019, filed in the name of M/s Deepnidhi International

[Image: Image23]

[„Deepnidhi‟], bearing IEC No. AALFD4113A. The goods covered

under the Shipping Bill were declared as “decorative iron material”

and the declared FOB value was Rs.66,000/-. The consignment was

covered by Master Airway Bill No. 160-1382-7063 and was destined

for Stromshaga AB, Sweden.

The consignment attracted the attention of the officers of the

Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch [„SIIB‟], Air Cargo

Export Commissionerate, New Customs House, New Delhi, pursuant

to intelligence received regarding the attempted export of prohibited

goods. The consignment was accordingly placed on hold for detailed

examination.

On 16.12.2019, the consignment was subjected to 100%

examination in the presence of independent witnesses and persons

associated with the Customs Broker. During examination, thirty-three

(33) brown-coloured corrugated boxes, covered with white HDPE

bags and brown adhesive tape, were found. Upon opening the boxes,

wooden logs of different sizes, wrapped in bubble wrap and

surrounded by thermocol sheets, were recovered.

The recovered wooden logs were identified as Red Sanders

[Pterocarpus santalinus] in assorted shapes and sizes. The total

quantity of Red Sanders was found to be approximately 1,158

kilograms. The export of Red Sanders was subject to the requisite

permission of the CITES Management Authority. Since no such

permission was produced, the goods were treated as prohibited goods

and were seized vide Seizure Memo dated 16.12.2019 under Section

[Image: Image23]

110 of the Customs Act, 1962 [„Act‟], on the reasonable belief that the

same were liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Act.

During the course of investigation, the Customs authorities

examined the circumstances in which the Shipping Bill had been filed

in the name of Deepnidhi. It was found that the Appellant had not

obtained any authorisation from Deepnidhi for filing the Shipping Bill

in its name. In fact, the investigation revealed that the Appellant had

not contacted Deepnidhi before filing the Shipping Bill.

The investigation further revealed that the documents relating to

the consignment had been provided by Shri Mohit Taneja, stated to be

one of the Directors of M/s Soleado Impex. The case of the

Department was that Shri Mohit Taneja had requested the Appellant to

file the Shipping Bill not in the name of his own firm, but in the name

of Deepnidhi, and that the Appellant had acted upon such request.

Thus, the Shipping Bill in respect of the consignment containing Red

Sanders came to be filed in the name of Deepnidhi without its

authorisation or knowledge.

It is also relevant to notice the role attributed to Shri Devender

Kumar in the investigation. Shri Devender Kumar was the G-card

holder associated with the Appellant. His office was situated at L-9,

Sunder Singh Building, near Mahipalpur Chowk, New Delhi, separate

from the premises of the Appellant. A search of the Appellant‟s

premises was conducted on 16.12.2019 in the presence of the

Appellant and independent witnesses. No incriminating document was

found from the said premises. A separate search was also conducted at

[Image: Image23]

the premises of Shri Devender Kumar, during which certain

documents, including a computer system, were resumed for further

investigation.

During the investigation, the Appellant‟s statement was

recorded on 16.12.2019. The Appellant stated, inter alia, that he used

to receive Rs.10,000/- per month from Shri Devender Kumar. The

Appellant also stated that he had lent his licence and dongle to Shri

Devender Kumar for a price. The CESTAT has relied upon this

statement, as also the Appellant‟s admission before the Tribunal

regarding receipt of Rs.10,000/-per month from Shri Devender

Kumar, to conclude that the Appellant had permitted Shri Devender

Kumar to use his Customs Broker credentials for undertaking

Customs transactions.

The investigation culminated in the issuance of Show Cause

Notice No. 29/KRM/ADC/ACE/2020 dated 09.12.2020 by the

Additional Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Export

Commissionerate. The said proceedings concerned, inter alia, the

attempted export of Red Sanders under the aforesaid Shipping Bill and

the role of the persons associated with the transaction.

On the basis of the aforesaid investigation and the offence

report contained in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2020,

proceedings were initiated against the Appellant under the CBLR,

The Appellant‟s Customs Broker licence was suspended vide

order dated 15.12.2020. After granting hearing to the Appellant, the

suspension was confirmed vide order dated 06.01.2021.

[Image: Image23]

15. Thereafter, a separate Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2021 was

issued to the Appellant under the CBLR, 2018. The Appellant was

called upon to show cause as to why his Customs Broker licence

should not be revoked, why the security deposit furnished by him

should not be forfeited and why penalty should not be imposed for

alleged contravention of the obligations prescribed under the CBLR,

2018.

An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations

contained in the said Show Cause Notice. Upon completion of the

inquiry, a report was submitted. The disciplinary proceedings were

thereafter considered by the Commissioner after affording the

Appellant an opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner ultimately

passed the Order-in-Original dated 02.08.2021, whereby the

Appellant‟s Customs Broker licence was revoked, the entire security

deposit of Rs.75,000/- was forfeited and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- was

imposed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

17. Contentions of the Appellant:

17.1. It was submitted that the Impugned Order passed by the

CESTAT suffers from non-application of mind, as the Tribunal failed

to consider the material submissions and evidence placed on record by

the Appellant. It was contended that the Appellant had undertaken

verification of the IEC and GST particulars of the exporter and that

there was no material to establish that the Appellant had any

knowledge of the prohibited goods sought to be exported.

[Image: Image23]

17.2. It was further submitted that the alleged arrangement with Shri

Devender Kumar, the G-card holder, could not be treated as a transfer

or sale of the Customs Broker licence. According to the Appellant, the

amount received from Shri Devender Kumar represented clearance

charges/agency commission and there was no transfer of proprietary

rights in the licence. It was contended that the expression “subletting”, relied upon by the Department, does not find place in

Regulation 10 of the CBLR, 2018.

17.3. It was next submitted that there was no evidence of any

knowledge, connivance or active facilitation on the part of the

Appellant in the attempted export of Red Sanders. The fact that the

Appellant‟s premises were searched and no incriminating material was

recovered therefrom was also relied upon. It was contended that, in

the absence of any material establishing mens rea or active

involvement, a procedural lapse in relation to KYC or the conduct of

the G-card holder could not, by itself, justify the extreme penalty of

revocation of the licence.

17.4. It was also submitted that the Appellant had verified the IEC

and GST particulars through the available online records and had

furnished the relevant documents during the investigation. The

Appellant could not, according to learned counsel, be expected to

continuously monitor the subsequent status of the GST registration or

undertake an independent physical verification of the exporter beyond

the requirements prescribed under the applicable Regulations.

17.5. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Kunal

[Image: Image23]

Travels (Cargo) v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General),

1

New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi, to contend that a

Customs Broker cannot be treated as an inspector of the genuineness

of every transaction or be fastened with liability for incorrect

information innocently furnished on the basis of documents and

information supplied by the client, particularly in the absence of

knowledge or mens rea.

17.6. It was further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the

Appellant is grossly disproportionate to the alleged infractions.

Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Nitco Logistics

2

Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), to

contend that although a Customs Broker is required to exercise due

diligence and supervision, the doctrine of proportionality remains

applicable while determining the appropriate punishment, having

regard to the gravity of the infraction and the attendant circumstances.

18. Contentions of the Respondent:

18.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent opposed the

present Appeal and submitted that the CESTAT had passed a detailed

and reasoned order after duly considering the material on record and

the submissions advanced by the Appellant. It was contended that the

findings against the Appellant were supported by the material on

record, including his own statement.

18.2. It was submitted that the Appellant had permitted Shri

1

2017 (3) TMI 1494 (Delhi)

2

2025 (10) TMI 509 (Delhi)

[Image: Image23]

Devender Kumar to use his Customs Broker licence, dongle and

credentials for consideration of Rs.10,000/- per month. According to

the Respondent, such an arrangement amounted to an unauthorised

transfer of the Customs Broker licence, in violation of Regulation 1(4)

of the CBLR, 2018, which expressly provides that a licence shall not

be sold or otherwise transferred.

18.3. It was further submitted that the Appellant had failed to

discharge his statutory obligations of verification and due diligence. In

particular, the Appellant had filed the Shipping Bill in the name of

M/s Deepnidhi International without obtaining any authorisation from,

or even contacting, the said exporter, and had failed to properly verify

the identity and functioning of the exporter. It was contended that the

Appellant had thereby violated the obligations prescribed under

Regulations 10(a) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018.

18.4. It was then submitted that the Appellant could not disown

responsibility for the acts of his G-card holder, particularly when he

had himself permitted the use of his licence and credentials for

consideration. It was contended that the violations were not merely

technical or procedural in nature, but constituted serious breaches of

the duties and obligations attached to a Customs Broker licence,

particularly when the transaction involved an attempted export of

prohibited Red Sanders.

18.5. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

3

in Commissioner of Customs v. K.M. Ganatra & Co., to submit that

$$

{o..}^{3}

$$

3

Civil Appeal No. 2940 of 2008 reported as 2016 (332) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)

[Image: Image23] [Image: Image9]

a Customs Broker occupies a position of trust and is required to

strictly discharge the obligations prescribed under the applicable

Regulations. It was contended that unauthorised use of the Customs

Broker licence and serious violations of the statutory obligations

warrant strict disciplinary action.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

In view of the rival submissions, the following issues arise for

determination:

I. Whether the findings recorded by the CESTAT with respect to

the Appellant‟s alleged violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e)

and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 suffer from perversity or any error of

law warranting interference under Section 130 of the Customs Act,

1962;

II. Whether the Appellant‟s admitted act of permitting his G-card

holder to use his licence and dongle for consideration amounted to an

impermissible transfer/parting with the use of the Customs Broker

licence contrary to Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR, 2018;

III. Whether the punishment of revocation, forfeiture of security

and penalty is so disproportionate to the established misconduct as to

warrant interference by this Court?

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.

[Image: Image23]

21. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the nature of the

obligations cast upon a Customs Broker under the CBLR, 2018. A

Customs Broker is required to discharge the functions entrusted to him

in accordance with the statutory framework governing customs

clearance and the specific obligations prescribed under the

Regulations. Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR, 2018 expressly provides

that every licence granted or renewed under the Regulations shall be

deemed to have been granted or renewed in favour of the licensee and

that “no license shall be sold or otherwise transferred”. The said

provision reads as under:

(4) Every license granted or renewed under these regulations shall be

deemed to have been granted or renewed in favour of the licensee,

and no license shall be sold or otherwise transferred.

Regulation 10, in turn, prescribes the obligations which a Customs

Broker is required to discharge in the course of his business.

In the present case, the finding with regard to the Appellant

having permitted Shri Devender Kumar to use his Customs Broker

licence and dongle for consideration does not rest merely upon an

inference drawn by the Department. The Appellant himself, in his

statement recorded during investigation, admitted that he was

receiving Rs.10,000/- per month from Shri Devender Kumar and that

he had lent his licence and dongle to him for a price. The CESTAT

has also noticed the Appellant‟s admission before it regarding the

receipt of the said amount.

The submission that the amount received by the Appellant

represented clearance charges or agency commission does not

satisfactorily explain the admitted fact that the Appellant had lent his

[Image: Image23]

licence and dongle to Shri Devender Kumar for consideration. The

distinction, therefore, is between permitting a G-card holder to act on

behalf of the Customs Broker and parting with the use of the Customs

Broker‟s licence and dongle for a fixed monetary consideration. The

latter conduct is expressly prohibited by Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR,

2018.

The Appellant‟s submission that there could be no “transfer” in

the absence of transfer of proprietary title in the licence cannot be

accepted on the facts of the present case. Regulation 1(4) expressly

prohibits the licence from being “sold or otherwise transferred”. The

CESTAT has found that the Appellant had lent his licence and dongle

to Shri Devender Kumar for consideration, thereby enabling him to

undertake Customs transactions using the Appellant‟s credentials. The

finding of violation of Regulation 1(4) therefore cannot be faulted

merely on the ground that proprietary title in the licence was not

transferred.

The fact that Shri Devender Kumar was a G-card holder

associated with the Appellant does not alter this conclusion. His status

as the Appellant‟s G-card holder cannot, by itself, justify the

Appellant handing over his licence and dongle to him for

consideration. Indeed, the very fact that the Appellant was receiving a

fixed amount of Rs.10,000/-per month assumes significance in

assessing the nature of the arrangement between the two.

The Appellant has sought to contend that the expression “subletting” does not find place in Regulation 10 of the CBLR, 2018. The

[Image: Image23]

submission, however, proceeds on an erroneous premise. The issue is

not whether the conduct of the Appellant can be labelled as “subletting” in the terminology of Regulation 10. The relevant statutory

prohibition is contained in Regulation 1(4), which prohibits the sale or

otherwise transfer of a Customs Broker licence. The substance of the

conduct, rather than the label attached to it, is therefore determinative.

The second aspect of the matter concerns the filing of the

Shipping Bill in the name of M/s Deepnidhi International. Regulation

10(a) of the CBLR, 2018 requires a Customs Broker to obtain an

authorisation from each company, firm or individual by whom he is

for the time being employed as a Customs Broker. The said provision

reads as under:

“10. Obligations of Customs Broker – A Customs Broker shall –

(a) obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or

individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs

Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the

Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of

Customs, as the case may be”

This obligation assumes particular significance in the present case

since it is an undisputed fact, also recorded by the CESTAT, that the

Shipping Bill was filed in the name of Deepnidhi without obtaining

any authorisation from it.

More significantly, the investigation revealed that the Appellant

had not even contacted Deepnidhi before filing the Shipping Bill in its

name. Thus, this is not a case where the Appellant had obtained an

authorisation from the exporter but subsequently acted upon incorrect

information supplied by the client. The very person in whose name the

Shipping Bill was filed had neither engaged the Appellant for the

[Image: Image23]

transaction nor authorised him to represent it before the Customs

authorities.

The Appellant was thus not merely confronted with a case of

incorrect information supplied by a client. He was approached by a

third party, Shri Mohit Taneja, with a request to file the Shipping Bill

in the name of another exporter, and instead of declining to undertake

such a transaction or advising as to the legal requirement of obtaining

the exporter‟s authorisation, proceeded to file the Shipping Bill in the

name of Deepnidhi. The finding under Regulation 10(d) is

consequently supported by the material on record.

Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 further requires a Customs

Broker to verify the correctness of the IEC and GSTIN, as also the

identity of the client and the functioning of the client at the declared

address, by using reliable, independent and authentic documents, data

or information. The said provision reads as under:

“(n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number,

Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of

his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using

reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information”

The obligation under this provision is therefore not exhausted merely

by checking whether an IEC or GSTIN exists in the electronic records.

The Customs Broker is required to verify the identity and functioning

of the client as well.

In the present case, the Appellant‟s reliance upon verification of

the IEC and GST particulars of Deepnidhi cannot answer the more

fundamental deficiency that he had not obtained any authorisation

from Deepnidhi and, as found during investigation, had not even

[Image: Image23]

contacted the said entity before filing the Shipping Bill in its name.

Verification of the existence of an IEC or GSTIN cannot, by itself,

constitute authorisation by the person in whose name the Customs

transaction is undertaken.

The Appellant has also relied upon the absence of any

incriminating material from his premises and contended that there was

no evidence to establish his knowledge or connivance in the attempted

export of Red Sanders. This submission, however, conflates two

distinct aspects of the proceedings. The question whether the

Appellant had prior knowledge of the prohibited goods is distinct from

the question whether he discharged the independent statutory

obligations imposed upon him as a Customs Broker. A violation of the

obligations under the CBLR, 2018 does not cease to be a violation

merely because the Department is unable to establish that the Customs

Broker was a participant in the underlying offence.

The decision in Kunal Travels (supra), relied upon by the

Appellant, does not assist him on the facts of the present case. The

principle that a Customs Broker cannot be expected to act as an

investigator or to ascertain the correctness of every declaration made

by a client cannot be extended to a situation where the Customs

Broker had not even obtained authorisation from the person in whose

name the Customs transaction was undertaken. The present case is

therefore materially distinguishable from a case involving an

authorised client furnishing information which subsequently turns out

to be incorrect.

[Image: Image23]

34. The circumstances surrounding the filing of the Shipping Bill

assume further significance when considered along with the

Appellant‟s admitted arrangement with Shri Devender Kumar. The

Appellant had permitted his licence and dongle to be used by his Gcard holder for consideration, and the Shipping Bill in question was

thereafter filed in the name of an exporter without obtaining its

authorisation. These circumstances cannot be viewed as isolated or

purely technical lapses. They demonstrate a failure on the part of the

Appellant to maintain the degree of control and diligence expected of

the holder of a Customs Broker licence.

It is true that the record, as noticed by the CESTAT, may not

establish that the Appellant himself had knowledge that the

consignment contained Red Sanders. However, such knowledge is not

a necessary ingredient for establishing the specific regulatory

violations which are independently established against him. The

disciplinary proceedings concern the Appellant‟s compliance with the

obligations attached to his Customs Broker licence. The admitted

lending of the licence and dongle for consideration, coupled with the

filing of the Shipping Bill without authorisation from the named

exporter and the failure to verify the identity and functioning of the

exporter, constitutes sufficient material to sustain the findings of

violation under Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n).

The CESTAT has also recorded a finding that the Appellant

violated Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018. Regulation 10(e)

requires a Customs Broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the

correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. The

said provision reads as under:

“(e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any

information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work

related to clearance of cargo or baggage”

The said provision is, therefore, concerned with the correctness of

information imparted by the Customs Broker to his client.

In the present case, while the material on record clearly

establishes that the Appellant filed the Shipping Bill in the name of

Deepnidhi without its authorisation and failed to discharge his

obligations under Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n), the Impugned

Order does not identify any particular information imparted by the

Appellant to a client which was incorrect and in respect of which the

requisite due diligence was not exercised. The finding of violation of

Regulation 10(e), therefore, cannot be independently sustained on the

reasoning contained in the Impugned Order. This, however, does not

affect the findings under Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n), which

are independently supported by the material on record and are

sufficient, when read with the Appellant‟s admitted conduct in parting

with the use of his licence and dongle for consideration, to sustain the

disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court in K.M. Ganatra (supra), has emphasised

the responsibility attached to a Customs Broker and the requirement

that the obligations prescribed under the applicable Regulations be

discharged with due diligence. The Customs Broker occupies a

position of responsibility in the customs clearance process and is

consequently required to discharge the obligations prescribed under

[Image: Image23]

the applicable Regulations. The Appellant‟s conduct, particularly his

admitted parting with the use of his licence and dongle for

consideration and his filing of the Shipping Bill in the name of an

exporter without its authorisation, falls short of that standard.

Having upheld the findings of violation, the next question is

whether the punishment imposed upon the Appellant calls for

interference. The Commissioner has revoked the Customs Broker

licence, forfeited the security deposit of Rs.75,000/- and imposed a

penalty of Rs.50,000/-. The question of proportionality must

necessarily be examined having regard to the nature and cumulative

effect of the violations established against the Appellant.

In the present case, the violation is not confined to a solitary

deficiency in documentation. The Appellant admittedly permitted his

licence and dongle to be used by Shri Devender Kumar for

consideration of Rs.10,000/- per month. In addition, the Shipping Bill

relating to the consignment was filed in the name of Deepnidhi

without obtaining any authorisation from that entity. The transaction

further concerned an attempted export of approximately 1,158

kilograms of Red Sanders, which, in the absence of the requisite

permission, was treated as prohibited goods. These circumstances

materially aggravate the nature of the regulatory breaches committed

by the Appellant.

The reliance placed by the Appellant upon Nitco Logistics

(supra) does not advance his case. It is correct that proportionality is

relevant while examining the punishment imposed upon a Customs

Broker and that revocation, being a serious consequence, must bear a

reasonable relationship to the gravity of the infraction. However, the

proportionality assessment necessarily depends upon the nature of the

misconduct and the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating

circumstances.

The facts of the present case are materially distinguishable. This

is not a case where an employee independently misused the Customs

Broker‟s credentials without the knowledge or authority of the licence

holder. The Appellant himself admitted that he received Rs.10,000/-

per month from Shri Devender Kumar and had lent his licence and

dongle to him for consideration. The Appellant thus knowingly

permitted another person to undertake Customs transactions using his

credentials.

The aforesaid circumstance assumes particular significance

because the Shipping Bill in question was thereafter filed in the name

of an exporter which had neither engaged nor authorised the

Appellant. The infraction therefore concerns not merely an isolated

lapse in verification, but the Appellant‟s admitted parting with the use

of his Customs Broker licence and dongle for consideration, coupled

with the filing of a Shipping Bill in the name of an exporter without

its authorisation in connection with an attempted export of prohibited

Red Sanders.

In these circumstances, the Court is unable to hold that the

Commissioner and the CESTAT failed to properly apply the principle

of proportionality. The punishment cannot be examined by isolating

[Image: Image23]

any individual lapse from the cumulative circumstances in which the

violations occurred. Having regard to the admitted lending of the

licence and dongle for consideration, the absence of authorisation

from the named exporter, and the use of the Shipping Bill in an

attempted export of prohibited goods, the revocation of the licence,

forfeiture of the security deposit and imposition of penalty cannot be

characterised as shockingly or manifestly disproportionate.

CONCLUSION:

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no

perversity or error of law in the findings recorded by the CESTAT

warranting interference under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

No substantial question of law arises for consideration.

The present Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending

applications shall stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AUGUST 21, 2026

jai/pal

SHAIL JAIN, J.