SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2838

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNIHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARTI ARUN SATHE
NANDKUMAR PAWAR – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP/507/2026



##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-OS:4429-DB

15 WP 507-26.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 507 OF 2026

Nandkumar Pawar ...Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

_______

Mr. Anil Balani a/w Jas Singhavi, P. Pawar i/b. Durgaprasad Pujari for Petitioner.

Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Mamta Omle & Rupesh Dubey for the Respondents.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 4th FEBRUARY 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER AARTI SATHE, J.):-

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges

the Order-in-Original bearing No. JC/SW/98/ADJN. APSC (hereinafter referred

to as “the impugned order”) dated 3rd April 2024 whereby a penalty of Rs.

31,50,88,552/- under Section 112(a) and 112(b) and Rs. 129,14,32,317/- under

Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),

being imposed on the Petitioner. The impugned order finds its genesis in search

proceedings, which were carried out by the officers of the Customs (Preventive),

Marine and Preventive Wing, Mumbai at the offices of M/s. Shree Charbhuja

Diamonds Pvt. Ltd (SCDPL), M/s. Kanika Gems Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Yogeshwar

Digitally signed by

MANISH MANISH

SURESHRAO S THUR ATE TS EHRAO

THATTE Date: 2026.02.17

11:38:37 +0530

Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., who allegedly indulged in making fraudulent outward foreign

Page 1 of 9

Laxmi

::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 11:54:10 :::

##PAGE2##

15 WP 507-26.DOC

exchange remittance using fake/duplicate bills of entries fabricated on the basis of

genuine bills of entry.

3. Briefly, the facts are as under:-

i. The Petitioner acted as a Customs broker on behalf of SCDPL, who was the

importer of diamonds. The Petitioner complied with the KYC norms and

ascertained the authenticity of the importers through the website of the Directorate

General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The Importer also provided his Importer-

Exporter Certificate (IEC) bearing No. 5211000731.

ii. After verifying the genuineness of the Importer on the basis of the KYC

documents, the Petitioner cleared six import consignments of rough polished

diamonds for SCDPL on 14th May 2013 and 15th May 2013.

iii. As stated above, on the basis of the intelligence received by the Customs

Department, the officers of the Customs (Preventive), Marine and Preventive

Wing, Mumbai conducted search and seizure actions at the various premises of the

importers including SCDPL.

iv. Statements of various persons connected with the said import including that

of the Petitioner was recorded by the officers under Section 108 of the Act and on

the basis of the aforesaid investigation, the Customs Broker license of the

Petitioner’s firm was suspended by the Principal Commissioner of Customs

(General), Mumbai Zone-I.

Page 2 of 9

Laxmi

::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 11:54:10 :::

##PAGE3##

15 WP 507-26.DOC

v. On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, the Additional Commissioner of

the Customs (Preventive), Marine and Preventive Wing, Mumbai issued a show

cause notice bearing No. II/MPIU-II/07/M&P/2014/SCN dated 9th February 2021

inter-alia alleging that the Petitioner willfully abetted in the misuse and mis-

declaration of the name of the importer and IEC in the six bills of entry and

therefore proposed to impose penalty on the Petitioner under Sections 112(a) and

112(b) along with Section 114AA and/or 117 of the Act. In pursuance of the

aforesaid show cause notice, Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order which is

the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

4. By the impugned order, a large penalty of Rs. 31,50,88,552/- under

Section 112(a) and 112(b) and Rs. 129,14,32,317/- under Section 114AA of the

Customs Act, 1962, has been imposed on the Petitioner. This penalty has been

imposed on the basis of investigation carried out at the premises of the three

importers as noted in para 2 above.

5. We have perused the records and the impugned order with the

assistance of the learned C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top