M/S. R.K. LOGISTICS vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

CUSAA-119/2025HC Delhi21 September 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s R. K. Logistics, a proprietorship concern, was granted a Customs Broker licence on 02.11.2016. The respondent, Commissioner of Customs, initially revoked the licence, forfeited a security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- vide an order dated 01.07.2020. Subsequently, further proceedings were initiated for violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, leading to a second order dated 16.04.2021, which again revoked the licence, forfeited the security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant challenged the order dated 16.04.2021 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT disposed of the appeal, noting that the licence revocation had already been upheld, but did not adjudicate the penalty imposed by the order dated 16.04.2021. The appellant filed the present appeal before the High Court against the CESTAT's final order dated 23.12.2024.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the action of the respondent in revoking an already revoked licence is beyond statutory provisions and leads to multiplicity of litigation, which cannot be appreciated. The Court noted that even if there were multiple causes of action for revocation, they should have been part of the same proceedings. Once the licence was revoked, there was no occasion to pass a second order of revocation without prejudice to the earlier one. Regarding the CESTAT's order, the Court found that while the tribunal correctly noted that the licence revocation had been upheld, it failed to adjudicate the issue of the imposition of penalty under the order dated 16.04.2021. Therefore, the impugned order of the CESTAT was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the tribunal to decide the issue of penalty imposition in accordance with the law. The issue of forfeiture of security deposit vide the order dated 16.04.2021 was deemed no longer to survive as the revocation of the licence had already been upheld by the High Court in a separate appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the action of the respondent in passing a second order revoking an already revoked licence is legally sustainable, considering it results in multiplicity of litigation for the same action? 2. Whether the CESTAT erred in not adjudicating the issue of imposition of penalty under the order dated 16.04.2021, despite the appellant's challenge, even though the revocation of the licence was already upheld? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that passing a second order revoking an already revoked licence is beyond statutory provisions and leads to unnecessary litigation. They also contended that the CESTAT failed to adjudicate the penalty imposed by the order dated 16.04.2021, which was a crucial part of their challenge. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 130

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CUSAA 119/2025 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 21.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010615482025 + CUSAA 119/2025 & CM APPL. 53089/2025

M/S R. K. LOGISTICS

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Shekhar Jha, Mr. Raj Datt, Mr. Chandan & Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Monica Benjamin, SSC with Ms. Laiba Arif & Ms. Prerika Narang, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)

1.

This appeal is filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) against final order no. 59921/2024 dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for brevity ‘the tribunal’) in customs appeal no. 50860/2021. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a proprietorship concern. On 02.11.2016, the appellant was granted a Customs Broker licence (hereinafter ‘the licence’). Pursuant to proceedings initiated

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 130

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 130 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →