Customs Broker penalty and insolvency resolution plan effect bar continuation of extinguished pre-approval claims.

Penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act was held unsustainable against a Customs House Agent where the Bills of Entry were filed on importer-supplied information and there was no proof that the broker itself suggested the disputed classification, knowingly furnished a false declaration, or otherwise contravened the Act. The ruling confirms that a Customs Broker is not required to independently verify every technical declaration absent evidence of active involvement or knowledge. It also states that, once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, pre-approval claims not covered by the plan are extinguished and related proceedings cannot continue. On both grounds, the impugned penalty and proceedings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was imposable on the Customs House Agent for the alleged wrong classification and declaration made in the Bills of Entry. (ii) Whether the proceedings could survive in view of approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was imposable on the Customs House Agent for the alleged wrong classification and declaration made in the Bills of Entry.

Analysis: Section 117 applies where a person contravenes a provision of the Customs Act, abets such contravention, or fails to comply with a statutory duty. The impugned penalty rested on the premise that the Customs Broker ought to have detected and corrected the importers' classification and valuation of technical goods. The record showed, however, that the Bills of Entry were filed on the basis of information supplied by the importers, that the importer bore the statutory obligation of truthful declaration and self-assessment, and that there was no evidence that the Customs Broker itself suggested the contested classification. A Customs Broker is not expected to act as a technical examiner of the goods or to independently verify the genuineness of every declaration supplied by the importer. In the absence of proof of any active role, knowledge, or statutory contravention by the Customs Broker, the ingredients for penalty were not established.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 117 was not sustainable against the Customs House Agent and the finding was in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings could survive in view of approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished and no proceedings can be continued in respect of such claims for the pre-approval period. The impugned demand proceeded on claims arising prior to approval of the resolution plan, and therefore could not be sustained independently. This also undermined the validity of the show cause notice and the consequential adjudication.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not maintainable to the extent they survived outside the resolution plan and this issue was also decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The penalty on the Customs House Agent was unsustainable, the underlying proceedings could not be continued against the extinguished claims, and the impugned orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs Broker cannot be penalized under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of proof that it itself contravened the Act, abetted the contravention, or knowingly furnished the incorrect declaration, and claims extinguished by an approved resolution plan cannot be pursued further for the pre-approval period.

---