TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled warehouse Bill of Entry (BoE) No. 8425098 dated 22.10.2023 and 8079118 dated 29.09.2023 at Port Code INDEL4 through Customs Brokers, namely, M/s Unique International (the Appellant) & M/s Dilip Kumar Thakur for import of "Dirham Fr Premium Oudh Essential Oil" and "Premium Luxury Base Oud Oil for High end Fragrances MF attar" respectively and had declaring value for the said goods. These goods had been declared to be imported from two suppliers, namely M/s Sun Prosperous Goods Wholesalers Co LLC and M/s Beautiful Creation General Trading LLC, both based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. It has been further declared in the said BoEs that these goods are to be re-exported to third country under Para 2.46 of FTP. Based on the premise that the goods appear to have been mis-declared in terms of CTH and value, the said consignments were put on hold by the Customs Preventive, Delhi. The officers informed the Appellant telephonically not to process with these Bills of Entry, as they wanted to see the importers. The Appellant neither proceeded with the impugned BoE nor issued NOC to the importer. Despite several emails sent, neither any importer has replied nor has any authorized represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, have been issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC- Import, New Customs House, New Delhi under Notification No.28/2022 dated 31.3.2022 and the impugned order has been issued by Commissioner of Customs, Dadri; the order impugned is perverse, illegal and bad in law. 4. Learned Counsel submits that before filing the Bills of Entry, the Appellant had obtained the self-attested copies of all the documents relating to filing of the said Bill of Entry such as, Invoice, Packing List, Airway Bill, KYC, IEC & GST Registration etc.; Appellant was totally unaware about the mis-declaration in terms of value and quality of the imported goods at the stage of filing of the said documents; there is nothing in the Show Cause Notice which show any mensrea on the part of the Appellant; part; also, there is nothing in the SCN which would show that the Appellant have colluded with the importer or any other person for gaining any monetary benefits by resorting to mis-declaration of the imported goods; they had only filed the Bills of Entry, but had not proceeded or pursued any further for clearing the goods once the Department instructed; Appellant role was only of a CHA/CB who had fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble High Court vide final Order dated 09.10.2018 in CUS AA/159/2018; Advent Shipping Agency Final Order No.A/75371/KOL/2022 dated 05.07.2022; Selected Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. 2025 (392) ELT 263 (Tri.-Del.) and Kailash Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal Chennai in Customs Appeal No.40232 of 2025. learned Commissioner failed to consider any of these cases before deciding the case. 6. Smt. Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 8. On going through the impugned order we find that learned Commissioner has elaborately discussed the three Show Cause Notices, dated 17.03.2025 issued to the importer and other concerned and makes a statement of the case for the Department. He duly records the submissions of the Appellant in brief. However, we find that Commissioner has not recorded the submissions of the Appellants relying on various cases. We further find that learned Commissioner in the discussions and findings enumerates the provisions of Regulations 10(d), (e), (m), (n) in Para 5.2 and proceeds to find that the Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on value even if the value is fair, too high or too low. Therefore, the Customs Broker has no role or right in deciding the transaction value. He cannot be held responsible even if it is low or high. 9.2 Further the Principal Bench held in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) V/s CC (1 & G), IGI Airport, New Delhi [2017 (354) E.L.T. 447 (Del.)] that:- "12. The aforesaid clauses do not obligate the CHA to look into such information which may be made available to it from the exporter/importer. The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through customs house and in that process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs house area. What is noteworthy is that the IE Code of the exporter M/s. H.M. Impex was mentioned in the shipping bills, this itself reflects that before the grant of said IE Code, the background check of the said importer/exporter had been undertaken by the customs authorities, therefore, there was no doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any doubt about the issuance of the IE Code to M/s. H.S. Impex, it was for the respondents to take appropriate action. 10. The Appellant further submits that Show Cause Notice in terms of Regulation 17 of the CBLR 2018. We find that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if the notice issued beyond the period of 90 days from the offence report, impugned order cannot be sustained. We also find that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Leo Cargo Services (supra) held that:- "14. It can be seen that the timelines as prescribed under various Regulations in CBLR, 2018, have been consistently held by the Courts as mandatory in nature. Each timeline is sacrosanct, and the idea of prescribing a time limit by statute becomes redundant if not adhered to. Therefore, it is not just the overall timeline of 270 days (as set forth in the Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010) that needs to be followed, but also each and every timeline as prescribed in the CBLR, 2018. 14.1 Timelines cannot be overlooked by Revenue by citing reasons on merits. We are bound by the decisions, as discussed above, passed by the Coordinate Benches o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the License or impose a penalty. This is so because in terms of Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR, such notice is required to be issued within a period of 90 days from the receipt of offence report. The order suspending the License of a Customs Broker cannot continue indefinitely and must yield to the procedure under Regulation 20 of CBLR. 19. The Customs Broker is required to respond to the notice under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR within a period of thirty days. The Commissioner of Customs is, thereafter required - in terms of Regulation 20(2) of CBLR - to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs to inquire into the grounds, which are not admitted by the Customs Broker and to submit a report. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs is further required to submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of the notice under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR. 20. In terms of Regulation 20(6) of the CBLR, the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs is required to be furnished to the Customs Broker....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prescribed. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. - (1999) 8 SCC 266, held as under:- "17....................It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935 36) 63 IA 372: AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)], Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322: 1954 SCR 1098], State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358: (1964) 1 SCWR 57].) An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5 1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done................" 13. We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors - (2015) 13 SCC 722 held that "Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the....