Customs house agent liability for misdeclaration in export documents upheld where obvious non-compliance was not reported.

A customs house agent was held liable for failing to advise the client and report obvious non-compliance where export documents misdeclared an antique Buddha idol and other articles as plastic goods. The court accepted concurrent factual findings that the agent had inspected and documented the consignment, could have noticed the true nature of the goods on prima facie examination, and breached clause 13(d) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. As no perversity was shown in those findings, interference was not warranted and the reduced penalty sustained by the revisional authority was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed on the customs house agent for misdeclaration in export documents and failure to advise the client properly under the applicable customs regulations was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The goods were examined as unaccompanied baggage and the authorities found that an antique Buddha idol, along with other undeclared articles, had been omitted from the shipping documents and wrongly described as plastic goods. The concurrent factual findings were that the customs house agent had inspected and documented the consignment, could have noticed the nature of the articles on prima facie examination, and failed to discharge the duty cast by clause 13(d) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 to advise the client and report non-compliance. The writ court and the appellate and revisional authorities concurrently upheld liability, and no perversity in those findings was shown.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld against the customs house agent and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the revisional order sustaining the reduced penalty was confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs house agent who prepares export documents for a consignment must advise the client to comply with customs requirements and cannot avoid liability where concurrent findings show failure to notice and report obvious misdeclaration in the documents.

---