CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

New Delhi

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. 4

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

[Arising out of OIO No. 18/ZR/Policy/2024 dated 23.02.2024 passed by the

Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi]

M/s Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Limited : Appellant

Block ‘M’, RZ-81B, Chanakya Place, Part-II
Opp, C-1, Janakpuri, New Delhi

Vs

Commissioner of Customs, Airport & : Respondent

General, New Delhi
New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi

APPEARANCE:
Ms. Vidushi Shubham, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

CORAM :

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 50014/2025

Date of Hearing:17.10.2024

Date of Decision:02.01.2025

HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA

The present appeal has been filed by M/s Jaiswal Import Cargo

Services Limited1 to assail the OIO No. 18/ZR/Policy/2024 dated

23.02.2024 wherein the Commissioner has upheld the violations under

Regulation 10(b), Regulation 10(d) & 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, and vide

the impugned order revoked appellant’s license, forfeiting security

deposit and imposing penalty.

1 The appellant
 2

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Customs

Broker having CB License No. R-81/DEL/CUS/2006 issued by the

Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi. A specific

intelligence was developed by the Office of the Commissioner of

Customs(P), Head Quarter Intelligence Unit, R& I Division, NCH,

Mumbai that M/s. Tanu Trading (IEC-AMCPGS448G) had imported

certain cosmetic items vide warehousing Bill of Entry No. 3673416

dated 09.12.2022, showing their intention for re-export of the goods

under Section 69 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, instead of

depositing the said goods in the bonded warehouse, the said goods

were being diverted to local market for home consumption. The

officers visited the custom bonded warehouse (NSAIU131) of M/s.

Akshay Logistics where the subject imported goods were destined for

deposition, but the goods were not found. Meanwhile, vide letter F. No.

GEN/CB/292/2023-CBS-0/ PR COMMR-CUS-GEN-Zone-1-Mumbai

dated 25.05.2023 was received forwarding an offence report dated

09.05.2023, for taking appropriate action against the appellant along

with the investigation report dated 06.07.2023. Accordingly, the CB

license was suspended vide order-in-original No.

36/ZR/Suspension/Policy/2023 dated 16.06.2023 under Regulation

16(1) of the CBLR, 2018. A show cause notice dated 04.09.2023 was

issued to the CB and on receipt of the Inquiry report dated

28.11.2023, and vide the impugned order dated 23.02.2024, the CB

license was revoked. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant

has filed the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Appellant's

role was limited to filing of B/E for warehouse upon submission of

 3

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

Triple Duty Bond with security duly executed by Importer, in the bond

section. Since, there was neither assessment nor examination of the

goods as B/E was RMS facilitated, an automatic out of charge from

customs was given by the system. After out of charge, goods were

handed over to the employee of Importer at the gate of CFS Apollo

Logi solutions Limited. Later, it was informed by Dilip Shelar about

depositing of the goods the bonded warehouse, which was supported

by documents. Consequently, there was no doubt that the goods had

been deposited. The ld. Counsel mentioned that the others involved

have accepted their respective roles in the fraudulent diversion of

goods and none of them has stated name of the Appellant alleging any

connivance of the appellant in any manner whatsoever. It was

revealed that two persons namely Akshay Padhale, Warehouse

Operator and Mohammad Imran Ibrahim Shaikh were the mastermind

and that Mohammad Imran Ibrahim Shaikh had used the documents of

Sh. Amol Ghare in seeking IEC and KYC documents in the name of M/s

Tanu Trading. The manner of illicit activity had been admitted by

Akshay Padhale and Mohammed Imram Ibrahim Shaikh, in their

respective statements. The statements of Shri Kishor Ramchandra

Parhad, alias Shri Babu Wadkar, who had handed over the KYC and

import documents to the employee of the appellant and submitted the

fake warehousing certificate to the bond section of the

Commissionerate; Shri Babu B Ithape: Shri Shekhar S. Bodake, who

had visited CFS Apollo; Shri Sunil Dubey, driver of vehicle who had

transported the goods from CFS Apollo to the warehouse; Smt.

Tabassum Begum Shaikh, warehouse keeper of MTS Warehouse,

wherein 22 cartons were stored; Shri Akshay Phadale, who had

 4

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

received the goods at the gate of CFS Apollo and carried the same to

the warehouse and obtained a fake warehousing certificate from the

keeper of the warehouse; Shri Sagar Bangar, the warehouse manager

of public bonded warehouse; Shri Amol Jalindar Ghare, proprietor of

Importer and Mohammad Imran Ibrahim Shaikh, who was beneficial

owner of the instant illicit goods have accepted their roles but none of

them have stated that the appellant had any knowledge about the

instant illegal diversion of the goods.

3.1 The Learned Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner

has given clear finding that Dilip Shelar was H-card Holder of the CB

and has attended the customs formalities however, has given adverse

finding that all customs formalities were not completed by him and it

has been held that one Babu Ithape has approached the dock officer

for clearance of the goods. It is submitted that the instant Bill of entry

was filed after obtaining Triple duty Bond with surety, duly executed

by the Importer, which was handled and submitted to the bond section

of the Commissionerate by Dilip Shelar, H-Card Holder. Further, the

bill of entry was registered under RMS informed vide ICEGATE's email

dated 12.12.2022 @ 7:05pm and no assessment and examination as

per RMS was prescribed for the consignment and therefore, the goods

were directly allowed for warehousing and Out of Charge was given on

13.12.2022 and after out of charge, goods were handed over to the

employee of Importer at the gate of CFS Apollo. It is pertinent to

mention here that CB's role was limited to only filing of the B/E and he

was not authorized by Importer to deposit of the goods in the

warehouse and thus, the employee of the importer i.e. Balu Ithape

collected the goods. Therefore, observation of Ld. Respondent that the

 5

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

Appellant did not attend the customs clearance is perverse and

unreasoned.

3.2 The Learned Counsel further contended that the Regulation

10(d) stipulates that "a Customs, Broker shall advice his client to

comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance,

shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of

Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be".

It has been wrongly held that the Appellant did not advice the importer

about requirement of NOC from drug controller for import for home

consumption. The warehousing Bill of entry for re-export purpose was

filed as there was no NOC by the Drug Controller at the time of

Import. However, when NOC from the Competent Authority was duly

available at the ICEGATE, the Appellant submitted the copy of Release

Order status print out pertaining to the B/E No.3673416 dated

09.12.2022 from ICEGATE. The Ld. Counsel contended that the same

was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that "the

appellant neither produced the said NOC before the Investigating

Authorities nor did he produce the same before the Inquiry Officer. As

there has been no evidence that the appellant was involved, hence,

the confirmation of violation of Regulation 10(d) was wrong and

unsustainable.

3.3. The Ld. counsel for the appellant further submitted that the

appellant had filed warehousing bill of entry for re-export purpose, as

whenever goods are found to be restricted in nature or lack some

compliance to Customs Act or Regulations, the goods can be re-

exported back to the same supplier or to a third country. Thus, for

such process, the goods are filed under warehouse on triple duty bond
 6

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

and when the importer has found a foreign buyer, a shipping bill is

filed to that extent. In the same manner, the Warehousing Bill of Entry

No. 3673416 dated 09.12.2022 was filed by the Appellant and "For re-

export Purpose" was mentioned against all item entries. There is no

separate bill of entry for re-export and thus, warehousing bill of entry

is only filed of re-export purpose. Further, as the importer had not

found a third country buyer, no shipping bills was filed in this regard.

Therefore, the allegation pertaining to violation of Regulation 10(d) is

completely baseless and whimsical and needs to be set-aside.

3.4 Learned counsel further contended that as regards the

Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, the Appellant had duly verified

the antecedent and correctness of IEC, KYC documents, GST and other

documents of the clients from government's official websites before

taking up the assignment of clearance of the goods. Further, there is

no requirement of physical verification of the importer by the CB under

CBLR, 2018. He further contended that neither the SCN nor the

impugned order has alleged that the Appellant had the knowledge of

said activity and therefore, any contravention which has occurred after

the clearance of the goods cannot be attributed to the CB thus, no

violation of CBLR, 2018 can be invoked in such cases.

3.5 Learned counsel further submitted that there is a finding that

the appellant might have been cheated by the H-card holder, but only

because there was alleged delayed response to the customs, does not

form a ground for revocation of CB license, as there is no finding that

the Appellant in connivance with Dilip Shelar has acted in this manner.

Moreover, the diversion of goods took place on 13.12.2022 right after

clearance and the cancellation of H-card has not affected the said
 7

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

investigation in any manner. Therefore, the said finding is vague and

ambiguous and cannot be assailed to sustain revocation CB license. In

support of, learned counsel relied upon the following judgements:-

 M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services V. Commissioner of Customs

(I&G), New Delhi2

 Buhariwala Logistics V. Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New

Delhi3

 Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C. New Delhi4

 Classic Strips Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Customs & Central

Excise, Thane -II5

4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department

supported the impugned order and submitted as under:-

(i) Regulation 10(b) Partial Compliance: Learned AR submitted

that the Customs Broker had failed to ensure that all customs

transactions were conducted either personally or through an

authorized employee approved by customs authorities, as stipulated in

Regulation 10(b) and the arrangement between the CB and an

individual named Shri Dilip Shelar did not meet the criteria of an

employer-employee relationship, as no salary was paid, indicating a

violation of Regulation 10(b). While the CB claimed that Shri Dilip

Shelar was an employee, the evidence presented was contradictory,

raising doubts about the nature of their relationship. The Customs

Broker allowed another individual, Balu Ithape, to be involved in

customs clearance activities, which violated Regulation 10(b).

(ii) Regulation 10(d) Non-Compliance: The Learned AR

submitted that the appellant failed to advise the importer to comply

2 Customs Appeal No. 50490 of 2019

3 2016 (331) E.LT. 633 (Tri. - Del.)
4 2016 (338) ELT 725(Tri. Del.)
5 2016 (339) ELT 144 (Tri. - Mum.)
 8

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

with provisions of relevant Acts and regulations, such as the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Cosmetic Rules 2020, as required by

Regulation 10(d). He submitted that the import of cosmetics without

obtaining necessary certificates and declarations constituted a violation

of customs regulations, and the CB's failure to ensure compliance with

these regulations amounted to a breach of Regulation 10(d).

(iii). Regulation 10(n) Non-Compliance: The Learned AR

submitted that the appellant failed to verify the correctness of the

Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax

Identification Number (GSTIN), and identity of the client using reliable,

independent, authentic documents, data, or information, as mandated

by Regulation 10(n). The Customs Broker's lack of physical verification

of the importer and reliance on third parties for KYC documents

demonstrated non-compliance with Regulation 10(n).

5. Learned AR further contended that the Customs Broker's actions

in the instant case revealed a failure to fulfill the obligations mandated

under Regulations 10(b), 10(d), and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers

Licensing Regulations, 2018. Despite evidence of violations, the

appellant attempted to defend their actions, but contradictions in

statements and evidence raised doubts about the appellant’s credibility

and compliance. The purpose of granting a license to a customs broker

is to ensure responsible and compliant conduct while facilitating import

and export transactions, which the CB failed to uphold in this case.

Overall, the department argues that the CB's actions amounted to

serious violations of customs regulations, compromising the integrity

of the customs clearance process and necessitating appropriate

 9

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

disciplinary action. In support of his submissions, learned AR relied

upon the following decisions:-

 Baraskar Brothers vs. Commissioner of Customs (General),

Mumbai6

 Commissioner of Customs vs. K.M. Ganatra7

 Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur vs. Naresh Kumar Meena 8

 Jasjeet Singh Marwah vs. Union of India9

 Skytrain Services vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport &

General), New Delhi10

6. We have heard the Ld Counsel and the Ld AR for the department

and perused the case records. The issue before us is whether the

alleged violations are serious and require revocation of the CB license.

7. The impugned order has revoked the CB licence holding that

Regulation 10(b) (partial), 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 have

been violated.

8. As regards the partial violation of Rule 10(b), we note that the

impugned order holds that by allowing Sh Babu Ithape to approach the

Docks officer for examination of goods, the appellant had intentionally

or unintentionally run afoul of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR. In this

context, we note that the Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant’s

role was limited to only filing of the B/E and he was not authorized by

Importer to deposit of the goods in the warehouse and thus, the

employee of the importer i.e. Balu Ithape collected the goods. We note

that Imran Ibrahim Shaikh in his statement dated 1.6.23 has admitted

that the appellant CB was not attending the further customs clearance

6 2009 (244) ELT 562

7 2016-TIOL-13-SC-CUS
8 2018 (360) ELT 60 (Raj.)
9 2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del.)
10 2019 (369) ELT 1739 (Tri.-Delhi)
 10

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

formalities, hence the documents were handed over to Babu Ithape for

clearance. This statement corresponds with what the appellant has

submitted. A plain reading of the said Regulation, it is apparent that

the Customs Broker is required to transact the business at the

Customs Station either personally or through his authorized employer.

That requirement stands fulfilled as Sh Dilip Shelar, who handled the

documents was an employer of the appellant. Further, it has been

submitted that his responsibility ended with filing of documents which

stands corroborated by the statement of Imran Sheikh. Hence, the

conclusion arrived at by the adjudicating authority that the appellant

has unintentionally or intentionally violated 10(b) is not correct.

Consequently, we hold that there is no violation of Regulation 10(b).

8. Regulation 10(n) requires the CB to advise his client to comply

with the provisions of the Act, other Allied Acts and rules and any non-

compliance would have to be reported to the Assistant/Deputy

Commissioner of Customs. The impugned order notes that NoC was

required from the Drug Controller and a declaration under Rule 19 of

the Cosmetics Rules, 2020, which the CB did not advise his client at

the time of import of the goods viz., Cosmetics. The Ld Counsel has

submitted before us that the importer had been advised regarding the

requirement of the NoC and it is on record that the said NoC was

subsequently obtained from the Competent authority. It was further

submitted that the goods had been released based on the said NoC.

We find that the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry for Warehouse for

re-export purpose, as is evident from the copy submitted before us.

This clearly evidences that the appellant was aware that as the NoC
 11

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

was not available for the imported goods, hence the goods could not

be cleared for home consumption. It has also been submitted before

us that subsequently, the said goods were released as the NoC for all

the 133 items imported vide the said Bill of Entry. Further, we take

note of the fact that the said Release Order was received from the

Competent Authority after the personal hearing held by the Inquiry

Officer appointed under CBLR, 2018 It is on record that the goods had

received the required NoC. The impugned order has concluded that the

appellant was not clear whether the B/E had been filed under Section

69 or Section 59 of the Customs Act. This cannot be the reason for

revoking the CB license. The appellant filed the B/E as per procedure

and same has been subsequently cleared by the Customs Department.

We note that as per section 146 of the Customs Act, the role of a

Customs Broker is related to the business of import or export of the

goods. The obligation of the appellant was only to facilitate clearance

of goods for warehousing at the Customs port. Admittedly, the

appellant was not responsible for the deposition of the goods to the

warehouse. We also note that the persons controlling the importer firm

had acted on their own accord to defraud the revenue, and there is no

allegation or evidence that the appellant had advised or aided their

nefarious activity. In this context, we take support of the Supreme

Court’s judgment in Collector of Customs, Cochin vs Trivandrum

Rubber Works Ltd., [1999 -2-SC 553] wherein the Hon’ble Court held

that the Customs Broker is an agent for only limited purpose of

arranging release of goods and once the goods are cleared, he has no

further function and he is not liable for any action of the importer.
 12

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

Accordingly, we find that there was no violation of Regulation 10(n) of

CBLR, 2018.

9. We find that the impugned order has also held that the appellant

had violated Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. It is an admitted fact

that the appellant submitted the KYC documents pertaining to the

importer such as IEC, GSTIN, Axis Bank letter regarding the AD code,

copy of the PAN and Aadhar card of the proprietor Importer. There is

nothing on record that these documents have been proved to be

fraudulent or fake. It has been repeatedly held that there is no legal

requirement of the CB to physically verify the premises and verification

of the government issued documents can be verified from the portal.

This has been done by the appellant. We note that the Delhi High

Court in a similar case, (CUSAA No. 2/2022) and vide judgment dated

25.09.2023 in the case of D S Cargo Agency vs Commissioner of

Customs, New Delhi, held as follows:

“18. The aforesaid Regulation requires the Customs Broker to

verify the identity of his client, which includes the identification

documents as well as the information provided by the client.

18.1. The Commissioner and the learned Tribunal have held that

the Appellant failed to verify the identity of the importer firms and

the antecedents of Mr. Sanjeev Maggu with whom the Appellant

had dealt with and exchanged the documents for filing before the

Customs Station. The Commissioner concluded that since the KYC

documents provided by the importer firms were forged, an early

 13

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

detection by Customs Broker could have prevented the evasion of

customs duty.

18.2. The Appellant has stated that he relied upon the result of

verification of the original Importer Exporter Code (hereafter

'IEC'), which were mandatorily supplied on the functional address

of the importer. It is stated that the IEC number was duly verified

by the Appellant from the website of Directorate General of

Foreign Trade (hereafter 'DGFT') and found the same to be valid.

The IEC number was standing in the name of the importer firms

and the physical addresses mentioned therein duly matched with

the declared address furnished by the importer firms. The said

fact of valid IEC has not been disputed by the Respondent.

18.3. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment

of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kunal Travels (Cargo ),

wherein this Court held that when an importer firm holds an IEC,

there is a presumption attached that the KYC of the importer by

physical verification of the address would have been done by the

Customs authorities. The relevant portion of the judgment in

Kunal Travels (Cargo ) (supra) reads as under:

"12. Clause (e) of the aforesaid Regulation requires exercise of

due diligence by the CHA regarding such information which he

may give to his client with reference to any work related to

clearance of cargo. Clause (l) requires that all documents

submitted, such as bills of entry and shipping bills delivered etc.

reflect the name of the importer/exporter and the name of the

 14

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

CHA prominently at the top of such documents. The aforesaid

clauses do not obligate the CHA to look into such information

which may be made available to it from the exporter/importer.

The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the

transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect

to clearance of goods through customs house and in that

process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter

the customs house area. What is noteworthy is that the IE Code

of the exporter M/s. H.M. Impex was mentioned in the shipping

bills, this itself reflects that before the grant of said IE Code,

the background check of the said importer/exporter had been

undertaken by the customs authorities, therefore, there was no

doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be far

too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the

genuineness of the IE Code given to it by a client for each

import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there

is a presumption that an appropriate background check in this

regard i.e. KYC etc. would have been done by the customs

authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the

appellant had knowledge that the goods mentioned in the

shipping bills did not reflect the truth of the consignment

sought to be exported. In the absence of such knowledge, there

cannot be any mens rea attributed to the appellant or its

proprietor. Whatever may be the value of the goods, in the

present case, simply because upon inspection of the goods they

did not corroborate with what was declared in the shipping bills,

cannot be deemed as mis-declaration by the CHA because the

 15

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

said document was filed on the basis of information provided to

it by M/s. H.M. Impex, which had already been granted an IE

Code by the DGFT. The grant of the IE Code presupposes a

verification of facts etc. made in such application with respect

to the concern or entity. If the grant of such IE Code to a non-

existent entity at the address WZ-156, Madipur, New Delhi - 63

is in doubt, then for such erroneous grant of the IE Code, the

appellant cannot be faulted. The IE Code is the proof of locus

standi of the exporter. The CHA is not expected to do a

background check of the exporter/client who approaches it for

facilitation services in export and imports. Regulation 13(e) of

the CHALR 2004 requires the CHA 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" (emphasis supplied). The CHAs due diligence

is for information that he may give to its client and not

necessarily to do a background check of either the client or of

the consignment. Documents prepared or filed by a CHA are on

the basis of instructions /documents received from its client

/importer /exporter. Furnishing of wrong or incorrect

information cannot be attributed to the CHA if it was innocently

filed in the belief and faith that its client has furnished correct

information and veritable documents. The misdeclaration would

be attributable to the client if wrong information were

deliberately supplied to the CHA. Hence there could be no guilt,

wrong, fault or penalty on the appellant apropos the contents of

the shipping bills. Apropos any doubt about the issuance of the
 16

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

IE Code to M/s. H.S. Impex, it was for the respondents to take

appropriate action. Furthermore, the inquiry report revealed

that there was no delay in processing the documents by the

appellant under Regulation 13(n)."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.4. The Appellant has stated that there is no dispute that

importer firms exist and they have participated in the

investigation conducted by DRI. It is stated that the fact that

these firms are dummy firms which are controlled by third parties

was a fact which was not within the knowledge of the Appellant

while he was initially dealing with the said firms for clearance of

cargo; and was a fact which came to his knowledge subsequently

after the goods had already been cleared by the Customs Station.

18.5. Appellant also states that the reliance placed by the

Commissioner on the statement of Mr. Lalit Dongra is not justified

since the Aadhar Card which is alleged to have been forged has

not been placed on record.

19. A perusal of the written submissions filed by the Respondent

would show that the Respondents have found the Appellant

'negligent' in verifying the KYC documents of the importer firms

as he failed to obtain the requisite KYC documents and/or verify

the documents made available to him by the importer firms.

20. This Court has perused the record. In the facts of this case,

there is no allegation of impersonation in the name of importer

 17

Customs Appeal No. 50251 Of 2024

firms. The finding of DRI is that these importer firms were not

being run and operated by the persons in whose name the

importer firms were incorporated. The allegation is not that these

firms are fictitious and do not exist. The finding is that these firms

are being run and remotely controlled by Mr. Sanjeev Maggu and

Mr. Ramesh Wadhera. The Regulation requires the Customs

Broker to verify the identity of the client (i.e., importer

firms) and in the facts of this case since the clients (i.e.,

importer firms) exist as is evident from the functionality of

the IEC (as discussed above), it is not possible to hold that

there has been a blatant violation of this Regulation, which

would justify the revocation of CB license.”

10. In the instant case, the KYC documents submitted by the

appellant are all valid documents. There is no other requirement

under Regulation 10 (n) which remains to be fulfilled by the appellant.

11. In view of the above, we hold that the revocation of CB license

by the Customs authorities is not sustainable, and impugned order is

set aside with consequential benefit, if any. Accordingly, the appeal is

allowed.

(Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.01.2025)

(DR. RACHNA GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

(HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
G.Y.