OD-3 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/679/2025 SUDIPTA BOSE VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI Date : January 21, 2026.

Appearance :

Ms. Micky Chowdhary, Adv.

Mr. B. N. Pal, Adv. …for the petitioner Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Ekta Sinha, Adv.

…for the Customs Authorities The Court: This writ petition lays challenge to an order dated July 22, 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), Kolkata Customs (Port) Commissionerate whereby penalty to the tune of Rs.50 lakh (Rupees Fifty lakh) has been imposed upon the petitioner.

Ms. Chowdhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a notice dated February 13, 2025 had been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty would not be imposed upon the petitioner on account the petitioner’s failure “to perform due diligence” in the case and for accepting export documents from an unauthorised person without making any further effort to check for the genuine existence of the exporter.

It is submitted that the petitioner replied to the said notice to show cause on May 1, 2025 detailing therein his defence and contending that the petitioner had exercised due diligence as also that the petitioner had not abetted in the illegal act with which the petitioner was charged.

It is asserted that in the said reply, the petitioner referred to several judgments of the Appellate Tribunal as well as of this Court to contend that any liability accruing from any mis-declaration in a bill of entry or a shipping bill could not be attributed to the customs broker and that the same was only to be directed against the importer or the exporter.

The adjudicating authority took into consideration the petitioner’s reply to the notice to show cause and ultimately passed the order impugned thereby imposing penalty of Rs.50 lakh (Rupees Fifty lakh) on the petitioner Ms. Chowdhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as none of the submissions made by the petitioner has been considered by the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that although the petitioner’s reply has been briefly recorded in the order impugned, the content thereof has not been dealt with. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s specific stand to the effect that the petitioner being a customs broker could not be visited with any penalty or liability on the ground of there being any mis-declaration in any bill of entry or shipping bill has been overruled on the basis of conjectural conclusions. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority has not dealt with any of the judgments that the petitioner has cited in support of his said contention.

Ms. Chowdhary relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Artee Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported at 2016 (332) E.L.T. 470 (Cal.) and submits that in a similar situation, the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Customs Authority since the same had been passed without dealing with the judgments cited by the petitioner in support of its contention.

It is further submitted by Ms. Chowdhary that the adjudicating authority has imposed a higher standard of duty on the petitioner than the petitioner as a custom broker is required to discharge, by holding that the petitioner has not physically verified the firm of the exporter and has not met the exporter in person.

Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Admn. & Airport), Kolkata Vs M/S Sunglory Agency (CUSTA 13 of 2023 decided on October 11, 2023), it is submitted by Ms. Chowdhary that a customs broker is not required to physically visit the premises of each of its clients for verification and that verification using documents and data informa