TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/2022 dt 07.05.20 24 2 50287 of 2025 M/s Gorgeous Apparels (FDEPM6019K) 7066566 dt 13.01.20 22 EOLUc9766 00 FSCU67898 05 245/2022 11357 dt. 22.07.20 22 188/2022 dt 27.12.22 22/24-25 dt. 01.05.20 24 3 50286 of 2025 M/s Vikash Trading(GUHPK062 6M) 7130149 dt 18.01.20 22 KCSUS7668 35 93/202223 dt. 22.07.20 22 187/2022 dt. 28.12.2022 25/24-25 dt. 07.05.20 24 1. The briefly stated facts which culminated in the aforesaid adjudications are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] Delhi zonal units got an intelligence about imports of areca nuts from Indonesia by mis-declaring the goods as "Beetle Nut", product known as "supari" classifying those under terrif item to 21069030. Based on the said intelligence that the consignments of the Bills of Entry as tabulated above of the respective importers, were got examined on 27/1/2022 and 28/01/2022 by the officers of SIIB, ICD Tughlaqabad. The representative samples were drawn from all the above mentioned containers and goods were accordingly seized vide order dated 30/05/2022. It was observed that the imported goods were broken cut pieces as well as whole pieces Areca nuts of substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted that the penalty upon the appellant CHA has wrongly been imposed. There is not even an allegation nor any proof of knowledge, participation, intent, abetment or mens-rea on part of the appellants for the alleged improper imports. The appellant had simply reproduced the importer's documents while filling the Bill of Entry. Admittedly, the appellant had no role whatsoever in procurement, shipment, negotiation, valuation, classification, decision making or any activity relating to the import. The routine filing of Bill of Entry by the appellant/ CHA has wrongly been held to be an act of abetment for illegal importation. 3.1. The law has been settled that penalties under Section 112 (a) (ii) and 114 AA cannot be imposed on the custom broker in the absence of any evidence which can demonstrate any kind of mens-rea with the appellant to abet the act of misdeclaration at the time of import. It is not at all legal especially when the goods were examined by the Custom's officer and were got cleared. The decision of Tribunal Allahabad Bench in the case of Joshi M.J vs CC Noida reported as 2019 (369 ELT 1507) Tribunal Allahabad is relied upon where it was held that mere acceptance o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o classification in the import documents. Hence, there is no infirmity when the penalties under Customs Act have been imposed on the Appellants. Three of the appeals are accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard both the parties, perusing the entire record, it is observed that the investigation was initiated against three of the importers who got the Bills of Entry filed through the present appellants for getting clearance of the goods which were declared by them as 'Areca Nuts' and classified under CTH 21069030. The impugned order have held that the goods were knowingly wrongly classified with intent to wrongly avail the exemption benefit of Notification No. 50/2017. None of those importers are mentioned to have challenged the outcome of the impugned orders where imports made by three of the importers have held to be improper and illegal imports. It is only the Custom Broker/CHA who is common to three of those importers its Director Shri Ashish Gupta who are before us being aggrieved of the penalties against them after. We further observe that the case of department is that the imported the goods were Areca Nuts classifiable under CTH 080280 for which the benefit of N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by customs officers are admissible as substantive evidence provided they are made voluntarily, and these do not attract the bar under Sections 24, 25, or 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The basis for this distinction is that Customs officers are not police officers and therefore the Evidence Act's bar on police confessions does not apply to statements recorded before the customs officers. 9. In Radhika Agarwal v Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters, a three-judge Bench addressed a batch of 279 petitions challenging the arrest and interrogation powers of Customs and GST officers. The Court upheld those powers but insisted on procedural safeguards such as recorded reasons for arrest, adherence to constitutional guarantees and protection against coercive pre-adjudicatory action. Crucially, it reaffirmed that Customs officers are not police officers, meaning Section 108 statements retain their full evidentiary weight. In Poolpandi v Superintendent, Central Excise 1992 SCR (3) 247 also the Supreme Court rejected the argument that questioning a person in a Customs office-without the presence of a lawyer or friends do not violate Article 21. The Court held tha....