Customs house agent due diligence: no liability for importer-supplied misdeclaration, but antecedent verification failure sustained.

A customs house agent was held not liable for misdeclaration or for failing to detect false documents because it had relied on the importer's invoice and papers, and the fabrication was discovered only after physical examination of the goods; the charge on that ground was not proved. However, the duty to verify the importer's antecedents was treated as part of the agent's due diligence, and independent verification was required despite IEC details. Because the importer's address and mobile number were found fictitious, that charge was proved and forfeiture of security was sustained. The appeal therefore failed, with no basis to interfere with the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charges of misdeclaration and failure to detect false or manipulated documents against the customs house agent were proved; (ii) Whether the charge of failure to verify the importer's antecedents was proved and the forfeiture of security could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the charges of misdeclaration and failure to detect false or manipulated documents against the customs house agent were proved.

Analysis: The customs house agent acted on the invoice and documents supplied by the importer. The incorrect description, country of origin and value were detected only after physical examination of the goods, and there was no showing that the agent could have independently discovered any fabrication in the documents. A customs house agent is not expected to know the true nature of the goods where the importer's documents themselves indicate otherwise.

Conclusion: The charges under this head were not proved against the customs house agent.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge of failure to verify the importer's antecedents was proved and the forfeiture of security could be sustained.

Analysis: Verification of the importer's antecedents forms part of the customs house agent's duty. The address and contact details available in the IEC material were not enough to dispense with the obligation of independent verification, especially where the importer's address and mobile number were found to be fictitious. On those facts, the failure to verify antecedents stood established.

Conclusion: The charge was proved and the forfeiture of security was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because only one of the charges was established, and the impugned order did not call for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs house agent is not liable for misdeclaration based solely on documents supplied by the importer unless a defect was discoverable on reasonable scrutiny, but the agent must verify the importer's antecedents as part of due diligence.

---