2026-VIL-168-GUJ-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs - Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 – Imposition of penalty on Customs Broker on the ground that the imported goods were overvalued and misclassified – Commissioner imposed penalties on the petitioner under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged failure to fulfill obligations under the CBLR, 2018 - Whether the ingredients of Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act are established against the petitioner – HELD - The respondent authority categorically found that the petitioner might not have knowledge of the overvaluation, misclassification or misdeclaration and had merely filed the Bills of Entry based on the documents provided by the importer. The act of "not advising the importer" will not attract the ingredients of Section 112(a) as it is a civil obligation directly connecting the importer, and cannot be extended to the Customs Broker unless it is proven that the Broker's advice or act/omission led to the goods being liable for confiscation. The provisions of Section 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA require mens rea, which was not established against the petitioner. Therefore, the imposition of penalties under these provisions is illegal - Before imposing the penalty on the petitioner, the respondent-authority had the option to suspend, revoke the license under the Regulation 14, and 16 of CBLR, 2018, in case the act of the petitioner deserved such action looking to his conduct. However, such steps are not resorted. Thus, the respondent authority by invoking the provisions of 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 has committed a jurisdictional error by misapplying the statutory provisions. The impugned order is ser aside and the writ petition is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page