2025 (7) TMI 859 - HC - Customs

Custom House Agent held responsible for gross misdeclaration of rotten cement bricks as specialized masonry blocks

The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal by a Custom House Agent (CHA) against CESTAT's order holding the CHA responsible for gross misdeclaration of goods. The ... Conduct of CHA - Seeking an adjournment as to place on record certain other orders relating to other Custom House Agents (CHAs) who were similarly placed to the Appellant. Ld. Counsel on instructions from the Appellant - misdeclaration of goods - HELD THAT:- Appellant wishes to withdraw his vakalatnama as the Appellant has not given proper instructions. In the facts of this case, vide the impugned order, CESTAT has held that there was a gross misdeclaration of the goods in question. The CESTAT considering the nature of misdeclaration, i.e., that they were declared as ‘custom made UV and IR radiation heavy cooling properties wave coated brick faced masonry block made of cement’ but were in fact rotten cement bricks, has held that the Custom House Agent (CHA) was responsible for the misdeclaration. The appeal filed by the CHA was accordingly dismissed. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not warrant any interference as there is no substantial question of law arising in the present appeal and, in any event considering the nature of misdeclaration, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal - appeal dismissed. The Delhi High Court, in an appeal against the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) order dated 4th October 2024, upheld the dismissal of the Customs Appeal No. 51248/2022[DB]. The CESTAT had found a 'gross misdeclaration' by the Custom House Agent (CHA), who declared goods as 'custom made UV and IR radiation heavy cooling properties wave coated brick faced masonry block made of cement,' which were in fact rotten cement bricks. The Court noted the CHA's conduct as 'extremely doubtful' and found no substantial question of law warranting interference. Despite an opportunity to produce orders relating to similarly placed CHAs, the appellant failed to do so. The appellant's counsel subsequently withdrew due to lack of instructions. The Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications, emphasizing that 'the impugned order does not warrant any interference' given the factual findings of misdeclaration.