To impose penalties under customs law, proof of mens rea is required; mere involvement without knowledge of misdeclaration does not constitute abetment.

ORDER :

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a Customs House Agent (CHA). W.P.No.27556 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned order- in-original dated 30.05.2025 imposing a penalty of Rs.30 lakhs on the petitioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act (in short “the Act”) for allegedly aiding and abetting the exporter for attempting to export the prohibited goods.

2. W.P.No.27838 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs suspending the petitioner’s Customs Broker License under Regulation 16 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (in short CBLR, 2018).

3. Since the cause of action for passing the impugned orders in both the writ petitions is one and the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

4. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner, who is a Customs House Agent, is said to have aided and abetted M/s.Meatco Industries (in short “Exporter”) to illegally export the prohibited “Bos indicus (Bull/Ox) meat” by mis-declaring the same as “Boneless Buaffalo Meat”. Apart from imposing the penalty of Rs.30 lakhs on the petitioner, the Customs Broker License of the petitioner has been suspended under Regulation 16 of the CBLR, 2018, for violating the provisions of Regulation 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. A finding has been rendered by the respondent in the impugned order in original that the petitioner did not exercise its due diligence, and owing to the same, it had aided and abetted the Exporter in their illegal act of attempting to export a prohibited item. In the impugned order in original, the respondent has further held that the petitioner did not alert the officials when the Exporter transported the goods from Hyderabad, whereas the abattoir is situated in Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh.

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr.Sunny Sheen Akkara, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit as follows:-

(a) The petitioner has not violated Regulation 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018.

(b) The petitioner had never physically inspected the goods as their job is only to assist the Exporter in their paper work to be submitted with the Customs Department.

(c) As per Regulation 10 of the CBLR 2018, there is no duty cast upon the petitioner to physically inspect the goods.

(d) On the face of it, the subject goods cannot be identified as prohibited goods. Even the respondent, upon inspecting the subject goods, could not identify the nature of the goods at the first instance, and they were able to ascertain the same only after receiving the lab report.

(e) Even if the petitioner had inspected the goods, they would not have been able to differentiate between them without the existence of a lab report.

(f) The Exporter had provided Health and Pre-shipment certificates issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, which certify that the goods were indeed “Boneless Buffalo Meat”. Only based on those documents, the petitioner had submitted the shipping bills which disclose the subject goods as “Boneless Buffalo Meat”. There is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner for the alleged misdeclaration.

(g) To constitute an act of aiding and abetting as provided under Section 114 of the Act, it is absolutely necessary for the petitioner to possess mens rea while committing an offence, which is not so in the present case, as the petitioner never had the knowledge that the subject goods is a prohibited item for export.

(h) In the impugned orders, it is observed that the petitioner was involved in 10 other similar cases. However, final orders have been passed in all