TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nse under Regulation 16 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (in short CBLR, 2018). 3. Since the cause of action for passing the impugned orders in both the writ petitions is one and the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 4. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner, who is a Customs House Agent, is said to have aided and abetted M/s.Meatco Industries (in short "Exporter") to illegally export the prohibited "Bos indicus (Bull/Ox) meat" by mis-declaring the same as "Boneless Buaffalo Meat". Apart from imposing the penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on the petitioner, the Customs Broker License of the petitioner has been suspended under Regulation 16 of the CBLR, 2018, for violating the provisions of Regulation 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. A finding has been rendered by the respondent in the impugned order in original that the petitioner did not exercise its due diligence, and owing to the same, it had aided and abetted the Exporter in their illegal act of attempting to export a prohibited item. In the impugned order in original, the respondent has further held that the petitioner did not alert the officials when the Exporter tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the acts of the exporter in respect of the other similar exports handled by the petitioner. 6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the reasoning given by the respondent for holding that the petitioner violated Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, on the ground that the petitioner neither informed the Customs Department nor advised the exporter that the goods were being transported from Hyderabad while the abattoir is situated at Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh, is untenable. The duty of the petitioner under Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, is to merely advise their client to follow the Customs Act, and in case of breach of the same, the Customs House Agent owes a duty to inform the same to the Customs Authorities. At no point of time, the petitioner is duty bound to inspect the goods or verify the genuineness of the transactions. The petitioner cannot be delegated with the duty of the Customs Department. 7. He would further submit that the reasoning given by the respondent in the impugned orders for holding that the petitioner has violated Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, is also incorrect. The respondent under the impugned orders has held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hand, Ms.Revathi Manivannan, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.27556 of 2025, and Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.27838 of 2025, would submit as follows:- (a) Investigation conducted by the Customs Department has revealed multiple critical discrepancies, and they are, (i) E-way bills showed goods originated from Hyderabad, Telangana, not Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh as declared in Health Certificate; (ii) Complete absence of Travel Fitness Certificates for livestock transport; (iii) No livestock procurement documents from registered markets; (iv) Abattoir M/s. Laham Food Products Pvt. Ltd. failed to maintain proper inward/outward registers of animals; and (v) No antemortem and post-mortem veterinary certificates as mandated by Red Meat Manual was produced. (b) The Exporter in his voluntary statement dated 04.12.2024, accepted the ICAR-NMRI test reports, and admitted that replacement of meat happened after dispatch from the abattoir. Investigation further revealed that the petitioner filed shipping bills in 10 other similar cases where exporters attempted to export prohibited "Bos Indicus (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., thereby attracting penalty under Section 114(i) of the Act. (i) If the Customs Brokers are permitted to escape liability by claiming reliance on exporters' documents, it would, (i) undermine the entire regulatory framework; (ii) incentivise wilful blindness and negligence; (iii) facilitate illegal exports and smuggling; and (iv) defeat the purpose of licensing and regulation. (k) The impugned orders are a detailed reasoned orders supported by (i) ICAR-NMRI test reports accepted by exporter; (ii) E-way bills and shipping bills; (iii) voluntary statements under Section 108; (iv) absence of mandatory documentation; and (v) documents recovered during searches. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to exercise its due diligence while verifying the accuracy of documents provided by the exporter and has facilitated the filing of shipping bills for export of prohibited goods by misdeclaring "Bos Indicus (Ox/Bull) Meat" as "Boneless Buffalo Meat", and hence, the petitioner is liable to pay penalty under Section 114(i) of the Act for aiding and abetting the exporter. DISCUSSION: 11. The petitioner, who is a Customs House Agent, has been penalised under Section 114 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect evidence to prove that there was mens rea (guilty mind) or actus reus (guilty act) on the part of the Customs House Agent. In the case on hand, there is no evidence available on record to prove that there was intentional wrong doing or deliberate misrepresentation by the petitioner for declaring the goods as "Boneless Buffalo Meat", a permissible item for export, instead of correctly declaring the goods as Bos Indicus (Ox/Bull) Meat, a prohibited item for export. 13. The petitioner had submitted Health and Pre-shipment certificates issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, with the Customs Department, which certified that the subject goods were indeed "Boneless Buffalo Meat", which is a permissible item for export, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalised under the provisions of the Customs Act for no fault of theirs. In the impugned orders imposing penalty on the petitioner under Section 114 of the Act, the respondent has not gone into the aspect of mens rea on the part of the petitioner, which is an essential ingredient to be satisfied for the purpose of penalising the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 114 of the Act. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the CBLR, 2018, the petitioner has to ensure that they carry out due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information that the petitioner imparts to their client with regard to clearance of cargo and baggage. In the instant case, there is no evidence produced by the respondent (customs department) to establish that the petitioner had given false advise to the exporter which resulted in the attempt being made by the exporter to export the prohibited goods. (c) The petitioner has not violated Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, as per which, the petitioner has to verify the Importer Exporter Code number, GST Identification number, identity of their client and functioning of their client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The petitioner had submitted all the aforesaid documents after due verification with the Customs Authorities during the enquiry, and at no point of time, the Customs Authorities had refuted those documents. Therefore, the question of holding the petitioner liable under Section 114 of the Act does not arise for the fault committed by the exporter in committing the illegal act of misdecl....