``CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52332 OF 2019 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A) CUS/D-I/ACC/IMP/NCH/227/2019 dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Customs House, near IGI Airport, New Delhi)

M/s. GND Cargo Movers, …..Appellant

217, Peepal Apartments, Sector – 17 – E, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, …..Respondent (Import)

New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi - 110037 APPEARANCE:

Shri Faraz Anees, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 13.01.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 05.06.2025 FINAL ORDER NO. 50843/2025 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

M/s. GND Cargo Movers¹ has sought quashing of the order dated

31.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi² by which the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, ACC Import (Adjudication), New Delhi³, imposing penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- upon the appellant under sections 112 and 114AA Customs Act, 1962⁴ has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed.

1. the appellant

2. the Commissioner (Appeals) 3. the Additional Commissioner

4. the Customs Act

2. The appellant as a holder of a customs broker license handled various custom clearance of import consignments of M/s. Trip Communications Pvt. Limited⁵ at the instance of one Ashok Kumar Agarwal. These consignments were cleared by the officers of customs.

3. A show cause notice dated 20.05.2013 was issued to the appellant alleging violation of regulation 13 (d) and (e) of the Customs House Agents, Licensing Regulations, 2004⁶ for a reason that the appellant accepted the IEC of an import firm mentioned by Ashok Kumar Agarwal knowing fully well that he was not a Director of Trips Communications. The show cause notice also alleges that the appellant abetted and dealt with goods which it knew or had reasons to believe were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and, therefore, was liable to penalty under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. The relevant paragraph 13 of the show cause notice is reproduced below:

“13. The CHA firm M/s. G.N.D. Cargo Movers (CHA No. ABRPN3905B CH001) have knowingly and deliberately abetted Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal and his accomplices S/Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Amit Kumar and Tripurari Nath, for imports of the impugned goods in violation of the various provisions of the law as quoted above. The CHA firm has failed in their obligation under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, particularly in regard to Regulation 13(d) & (e), of the said Rule which requires the CHA to advise 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 Custom and further 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

5. Trip Communications

6. the Licensing Regulations or baggage. In this case the CHA firm knowingly accepted IEC of import firm mentioned from Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal and his accomplices knowingly fully well that he was not the director of M/s. TCPL and thereby abetted the act of mis-declaration of the bonafide of the importer and value of the imported goods by way of mis-declaration. The CHA firm have thereby abetted and dealt with goods which they knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore they are liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 112 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. (emphasis supplied)

4. The Additional Commissioner, by the order dated 18.05.2016, imposed penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs upon the appella