No Penalty on Customs Broker Without Mens Rea | CESTAT

Case Details: Suresh Kumar Aggarwal vs. Commissioner of Customs -III, Raigad (2025) 35 Centax 98 (Tri.-Bom)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Shri M.M. Parthiban, Member (T)
• Shri Prabhat Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Shri D.S. Mann, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was a Customs Broker whose licence had been issued under section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962, and against whom proceedings were initiated alleging connivance with importers in clearance of undervalued imported goods, resulting in short payment of customs duty. It was alleged by the Department that the Customs Broker had facilitated clearance of imported goods on the basis of documents provided by the importers, was aware of misuse of Importer Exporter Code (IEC), and had filed mis-declared Bills of Entry (B/E), thereby violating obligations under Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. On adjudication of the show cause notice, the Customs Broker was proceeded against as a co-noticee and penalty was imposed under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, along with the importers, on the premise that false and incorrect material had been used in the transaction of business. The Customs Broker contended that it had merely facilitated import clearance on the strength of documents handed over by the importers, that no mens rea or conscious knowledge of undervaluation was attributable to it, and that violations, if any, of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 could not attract penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The matter was accordingly placed before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be imposed on a Customs Broker merely for facilitating imports on the basis of documents furnished by the importer, in the absence of mens rea or conscious knowledge of falsity or undervaluation. The Tribunal held that the expression “…in transaction of any business for purposes of this Act, shall be liable to penalty…” appearing in section 114AA could not be construed to automatically authorise imposition of penalty on a licensed Customs Broker for breach of obligations prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. It was further held that section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the licensing framework for Customs Brokers and that the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 constitute a separate regulatory mechanism for dealing with violations of broker obligations. Applying the rule of literal interpretation, the Tribunal held that, in the absence of evidence establishing criminal intent or conscious involvement in duty evasion, penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable against the Customs Broker, and accordingly allowed the appeal.

List of Cases Cited

• Commissioner v. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. — 2005 (180) E.L.T. 434 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 8.6, 8.7]
• Commissioner v. Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd. — 2020 (372) E.L.T. 332 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 8.7]
• Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pepsi Foods Ltd. — Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2021, decided on 6-4-2021 by Supreme Court — Followed [Paras 8.5, 8.7]