Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 11597
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ
BRUCE LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 10980/2025 @ SLP (C) No. 6451 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Batra
For the Respondents: N. Venkataraman, V. C. Bharathi, Madhav Sinhal, Kartikey Asthana, Sarthak Karol, Prerna Dhal, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Nisha Bagchi, B. K. Satija, Ishaan Sharma
The court ruled that allegations of mis-declaration versus mis-classification require careful examination of evidence and statements, emphasizing the need for voluntary confessions to be scrutinized.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections relating to mis-declaration and mis-classification - High Court's observations contradicted accepted findings of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on mis-declaration issue. - CESTAT findings clarified that mis-declaration was incorrectly attributed to the appellant, establishing doubts on the voluntary nature of confessions used as evidence. (Paras 5-10)
(B) Appeals concerning duties of customs brokers examined, highlighting duties under Customs Broker Regulations 2013 and implications of non-compliance - The court found insufficient evidence tying appellant to allegations of advising mis-declaration, questioning initial findings based on retracted confessions. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
This appeal challenges the findings related to the classification and declaration of imported goods under the Customs Act. There was a disagreement on whether the appellant had advised mis-declaration as alleged based on observations made by the High Court contrary to CESTAT records.
Findings of Court:
The observations made in paragraph 6 by the High Court were deemed incorrect as they misrepresented the findings of the CESTAT.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the allegations of mis-declaration versus mis-classification involving responsibilities and proper advisement by customs brokers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the determination of culpability based on a retracted statement must be examined for voluntary nature, affecting the reliance on such evidence. Mis-classification was more applicable than mis-declaration in this case.
Result: The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discrepancies between lower court findings and cestat decisions. (Para 3 , 5 , 9) |
| 2. issues concerning the role of customs brokers and classification of goods. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's final decision regarding the appeal. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises from an order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Customs Appeal No. 17 of
2023.
4. Though appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) was dismissed, but certain observations have crept in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the High Court which run contrary to CESTAT’s observations, therefore, on 28.02.2025, a limited notice was issued by this Court. For reference, the Order dated 28.02.2025 is extracted below: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.08.25 Reason:
Application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned order is allowed.
Delay condoned.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the findings recorded by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in its judgment dated 10th December, 2019 and in particular, in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12. He submits that what is recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment is contrary to what was held by the CESTAT.
Issue notice confined to the aforesaid aspect, returnable on 28.03.2025.”
5. In paragraph 6 of the Order, the High Court has observed as under:
“In the order-in-original respondent had given a factual finding against appellant holding that appellant was responsible to advise the Importer to follow rules and regulations governing clearance of the imported goods and any non-compliance should have been brought to the notice of the Customs Authorities. There is also a factual finding that appellant had suggested to the Importer to mis-declare the imported goods in order to aid and abet the Importer in circumventing the requirement under both Foreign Trade Policy and the Arms Act, 1959 read with the Arms Rules, 2016 as amended. There is a factual finding that appellant was having knowledge of such m i s - declaration and accordingly m i s-cl a s s ification under CTH 9503 being “Black Firing Guns” and required DGFT license under the import policy and license under the Arms Act, 1959 read with Arms Rules, 2016. This factual finding, in our view, has been accepted by the Tribunal in the portion quoted above.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the observation made by the High Court that the factual finding returned in the Order-in-original in respect of mis- declaration was accepted by the CESTAT is not correct, as would be clear from paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12 of the order of CESTAT.
7. The observations of CESTAT in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12 are extracted below:
“4.9 From the above it is quite evident that sole evidence relied in the impugned order, against the appellant is the statement dated 19.06.2017 of Shri Rajesh Kumar Goswami, wherein he has stated that their custom Broker had suggested to declare the goods as “Metal Toy Guns”. Apart from the above in the impugned order we do not find anything else relied against the appellants. As have been stated in para 4.5, the said statement was relied upon by the Commissioner, has been retracted by Shri Rajesh Kumar Goswami before ACMM, stating that the statement was not voluntary and has been taken by the Customer Officer under duress and by giving false promise and false information. In the impugned order reliance has been placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Jasjeet Singh Marwah (2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del), stating that statement made before the Customs Officers under Section 108 is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and can form sole basis for conviction. There can be no dispute about the same, however, the statement has to exa
