Case Details: Bruce Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 34 Centax 2 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manoj Misra & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
- Shri Ashish Batra, AOR, for the Appellant
- S/Shri Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr Adv. S/Shri, N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., V.C. Bharathi, Madhav Sinhal, Kartikey Asthana, Sarthak Karol, Prerna Dhal, B.K. Satija, Ishaan Sharma, Advs., Dr N. Visakamurthy, Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR’s, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The Appellant-Customs Broker had filed bill of entry on behalf of importer for clearance of Blank Firing Guns allegedly by misdeclaring/misclassifying it under Heading 9503 of Customs Tariff to circumvent upon requirement of import license issued by DGFT under Foreign Trade Policy and license under Arms Act, 1959 read with Arms Rules, 2016, as amended – CESTAT, while setting aside revocation of Customs Broker’s license, had observed that entire case of misdeclaration/misclassification could have been averted if DGFT license/certificate was produced or insisted upon before clearance of goods, and since Custom authorities had not insisted for same, revocation of license was too harsh punishment for same, therefore, considering fact that goods sought to be cleared were blank guns which could have been modified into lethal weapons jeopardizing National Security and security of individuals, forfeiture of security deposit of Customs Broker was justified. The Bombay High Court in impugned order, while upholding order of CESTAT and dismissing appeal of Customs Broker, had observed that since factual findings of adjudicating authority was accepted by CESTAT and it had passed its order based on such factual findings, no substantial question of law had arisen against such order. The Customs Broker’s plea was that observation made by High Court in impugned order that ‘factual finding returned in Order-in-original in respect of misdeclaration was accepted by CESTAT’, being contrary to CESTAT’s observations, was not correct
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court after correcting certain errors in the observation of the Bombay High Court in its order with respect to factual findings returned in order-in-original, disposes of the appeal against said order holding that where Customs Broker had aided and abetted the importer and filed a bill of entry on behalf of him for clearance of Blank Firing Guns by misclassifying it under Customs Tariff Heading 9503 to circumvent upon requirements of import license and arms license, which were neither produced nor insisted upon before its clearance, revocation of his license was too harsh punishment for the same and therefore, considering the fact that the goods sought to be cleared were blank guns which could have been modified into lethal weapons, forfeiture of the security deposit of the Customs Broker was justified.
List of Cases Cited
- Bruce Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (General), Mumbai — (2022) 1 Centax 329 (Tri.-Bom) — Partly Modified — [Para 6]
