FINAL ORDER NO. 51420-51422/2026

DR. RACHNA GUPTA

The present order disposes of 3 appeals arising out of same investigation; one being the Custom House Agent, another appellant namely Shri Ashish Gupta is the director of the CHA. Being aggrieved of imposition of penalty. The details of 3 of the appeals are tabulated below.

[[IMG_1]]

[[IMG_2]]

1. The briefly stated facts which culminated in the aforesaid adjudications are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, DRI Delhi zonal units got an intelligence about imports of areca nuts from Indonesia by mis-declaring the goods as "Beetle Nut”, product known as “supari" classifying those under terrif item to 21069030. Based on the said intelligence that the consignments of the Bills of Entry as tabulated above of the respective importers, were got examined on 27/1/2022 and 28/01/2022 by the officers of SIIB, ICD Tughlaqabad. The representative samples were drawn from all the above mentioned containers and goods were accordingly seized vide order dated 30/05/2022. It was observed that the imported goods were broken cut pieces as well as whole pieces Areca nuts of substandard/ inferior quality. CRCL New Delhi vide report dated 04/02/2022 and Areca Nut Research and Development Foundation Mangalore vide letter dated 09/03/20212, as per COA- FSSR/ 2011 and IS: 16962/2018, reported with respect to moisture content therein.

1.1. The statements of the importers were got recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act who acknowledged that goods are actually classifiable under CTH 08028090 and are prohibited goods for want of compliance of the terms of DGFT notification no. 20/2015- 2020 dated 25/07/2018. The goods were accordingly observed liable to confiscation for contravention of the provisions of section 111(d) and section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962. It was further stated that the value of imported goods was also wrongly declared as Rs. 90.48 per kilogram. The goods were wrongly classified under CTH 21069030 with the sole intention of wrongly claiming the exemption benefit vide S.No 103 of notification no. 50/2017 – CUS dated 30/06/2017. The appellant were stated to be aware of the same.

1.2. Based on the said statement the present appellant/ CHA has also been alleged to have abetted in the improper importation of the goods in question by knowingly mis classifying the imported goods. It is alleged that the CHA knowingly used false and incorrect material in relation to the imported goods, by incorrectly advising the importer about the correct classification despite that he himself was aware of the same. The Act and Conduct of the custom broker/ Appellant is alleged to be in violation of the Regulation 10(d) 10 (e) 10 (f) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2018 (CBLR).

1.3. With these allegations that the Show Cause Notices, as tabulated above, were served not only upon the respective importers but also on the appellant being the common CHA for three of the importers. In addition to proposals qua the importers, the Show Cause Notices have proposed the penalty to be imposed upon the appellant in terms of Section 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962. The proposal has been confirmed vide the respective adjudication orders, as tabulated above. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal.

2. We have heard Shri Sambhav Jain and Shri Pranav Raj Learned counsels for the appellant and Shri Anuj Kumar Neeraj, Authorized Representative (AR) for the department.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the penalty upon the appellant CHA has wrongly been imposed. There is not even an allegation nor any proof of knowledge, participation, intent, abetment or mens-rea on part of the appellants for the alleged improper imports. The appellant had simply reproduced the importer’s documents while filling the Bill of Entry. Admittedly, the appellant had no role whatsoever in procurement, shipment, negotia