ENTIRE LOGISTICS PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT-NEW DELHI

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I
Customs Appeal No. 50286 of 2025

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeals No. CC(A) Cus/D- II/TKD/25/2024-25 DATED
06.05.2024

M/s Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd. ....Appellant
Office No.207,MS Chamber Near Hira Sweets
Vikas Marg Laxmi Nagar
New Delhi 110092

Versus

Commissioner Appeals-Commissioner of .... Respondent
Customs Import,
New Delhi

With


Customs Appeal No. 50287 of 2025

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeals No. CC(A) Cus/D- II/TKD/22/2024-25 DATED
01.05.2024

M/s Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd. ....Appellant
Office No.207,MS Chamber Near Hira Sweets
Vikas Marg Laxmi Nagar
New Delhi 110092


Versus

Commissioner Appeals-Commissioner of .... Respondent
Customs Import,
New Delhi



And

Customs Appeal No. 51865 of 2025
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeals No. CC(A) Cus/D- II/TKD/24/2024-25 DATED
06.05.2024

M/s Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd. ....Appellant
Office No.207,MS Chamber Near Hira Sweets
Vikas Marg Laxmi Nagar
New Delhi 110092

Versus

Commissioner Appeals-Commissioner of .... Respondent
Customs Import,
New Delhi



1

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
2


APPEARANCE:
Ms. Shri Sambhav Jain and Shri Pranav Raj Advocates for the
Respondent

Mr. Anuj Kumar Neeraj , Authorized Representatives of the Department

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 05.05.2026
DATE OF DECISION:02.09.2026

FINAL ORDER NO. 51420-51422/2026

DR. RACHNA GUPTA

The present order disposes of 3 appeals arising out of same
investigation; one being the Custom House Agent, another appellant
namely Shri Ashish Gupta is the director of the CHA. Being aggrieved of
imposition of penalty. The details of 3 of the appeals are tabulated
below.

Appeal
Name of the
Bill of
Container
SCN OIO OIA
S.
No
no.
importer and IEC
Entry no.
number
and Date
1 51865
M/S SYM Company
7138319
CIPUS15659
244/2022
181/22 dt
24/2022
of
(BSKPG0173P)
dt 19.01
1
22.07.20
15.12.2022
dt
2025
2022
SEGU41042
22
07.05.20
55
24
TGBUS5362
69
2 50287
M/s Gorgeous
7066566
EOLUc9766
245/2022
188/2022
22/24-25
of
Apparels
dt
00
11357 dt.
dt 27.12.22
dt.
2025
(FDEPM6019K)
13.01.20
FSCU67898
22.07.20
01.05.20
22
05
22
24
2

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
3

3 50286
M/s Vikash
7130149
KCSUS7668
93/2022-
187/2022
25/24-25
of
Trading(GUHPK062
dt
35
23 dt.
dt.
dt.
2025
6M)
18.01.20
22.07.20
28.12.2022
07.05.20
22
22
24


1. The briefly stated facts which culminated in the aforesaid
1
adjudications are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 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 substandard/ inferior
quality. CRCL New Delhi vide report dated 04/02/2022 and Areca Nut
Research and Development Foundation Mangalore vide letter dated
09/03/20212, as per COA- FSSR/ 2011 and IS: 16962/2018, reported
with respect to moisture content therein.
1.1. The statements of the importers were got recorded under
section 108 of the Customs Act who acknowledged that goods are
actually classifiable under CTH 08028090 and are prohibited goods for
want of compliance of the terms of DGFT notification no. 20/2015-
2020 dated 25/07/2018. The goods were accordingly observed liable
to confiscation for contravention of the provisions of section 111(d)
and section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962. It was further stated

1
DRI
3

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
4

that the value of imported goods was also wrongly declared as Rs.
90.48 per kilogram. The goods were wrongly classified under CTH
21069030 with the sole intention of wrongly claiming the exemption
benefit vide S.No 103 of notification no. 50/2017 – CUS dated
30/06/2017. The appellant were stated to be aware of the same.
1.2. Based on the said statement the present appellant/ CHA has
also been alleged to have abetted in the improper importation of the
goods in question by knowingly mis classifying the imported goods. It
is alleged that the CHA knowingly used false and incorrect material in
relation to the imported goods, by incorrectly advising the importer
about the correct classification despite that he himself was aware of
the same. The Act and Conduct of the custom broker/ Appellant is
alleged to be in violation of the Regulation 10(d) 10 (e) 10 (f) of
Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 20189 (CBLR).
1.3. With these allegations that the Show Cause Notices, as
tabulated above, were served not only upon the respective importers
but also on the appellant being the common CHA for three of the
importers. In addition to proposals qua the importers, the Show Cause
Notices have proposed the penalty to be imposed upon the appellant
in terms of Section 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962. The
proposal has been confirmed vide the respective adjudication orders,
as tabulated above. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this
Tribunal.
2. We have heard Shri Sambhav Jain and Shri Pranav Raj Learned
counsels for the appellant and Shri Anuj Kumar Neeraj, Authorized
Representative (AR) for the department.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
penalty upon the appellant CHA has wrongly been imposed. There is
4

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
5

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 of document and filing of papers
without any alleged positive act or awareness of wrong doing cannot
attract penalty. Decision of this Tribunal Madras Bench in the case
titled as G seenivasan vs CC Airport& Air Cargo reported as
(2024) 18 Centex 248 Tribunal Madras and of the principal Bench
of the Tribunal in Him Logistics pvt ltd vs Commissioner of
Customs New Delhi report as 2016 (340 ELT 388) Tribunal Delhi
is also relied where it was held that the classification of goods is a
technical and complex function resting with the customs assessing
officer. The CHA cannot be expected to override the importers
documents or to conduct any kind of analysis to predict the
classification thereof.
5

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
6

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the
decision of this Tribunal in the Excise Appeal no. 51148 of 2020
decided vide final order no. 50453- 50454 of 2025 in the case
titled as M/s Suryawires pvt ltd. vs Principal Commissioner
CGST Raipur wherein it has been held that for any statement to be
relied upon for the purpose of proceeding against the maker thereof,
the statement should have undergone the test of Section 9 D of
Central Excise Act, 1944 or of Section 138 B of the Customs Act,
1962. Since, those provisions have not been followed by the
adjudicating authorities in the present case, the sole reliance on the
statements of the importers and of the appellants is wrongly made the
basis of imposition of penalty. With these submissions, the penalties
imposed upon the appellant are prayed to be set aside. Three of the
appeals are accordingly prayed to be allowed.
5. Learned AR appearing on behalf of department, while
rebutting the submissions, has mentioned that the appellant custom
broker had filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer. In his
statement the director of the Appellant namely Shri Ashish Gupta had
admitted that importers were suggested by them to classify the goods
under CTH 21069030 so as to get the goods cleared at minimum
custom duty and to remain competitive in the market. Learned DR
impressed upon that the investigation has clearly established that the
appellant CHA had knowingly recommended the incorrect classification
which enabled the importer to attempt clearance of the prohibited
goods. The investigation has established that the Appellant knowingly
and intentionally used the false and incorrect declarations relating to
classification in the import documents. Hence, there is no infirmity when
6

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
7

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 Notification No. 50/2017-Cus was not
available. The import was below the Minimum Import Price and
therefore prohibited. Consequently, Goods valued at Rs. 3,01,52,233/-
were confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act
and Penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 112(a)(i) was imposed on
the appellant Penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 under Section 114AA was also
imposed
7. The statement of the appellant Shri. Ashish Gupta director
has been the basis of imposition of penalty on the appellants. The
appellants has objected the admissibility thereof. However, we observe
that, the statement of the said director namely Shri Ashish Gupta was
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962. Section 108 of
7

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
8

the Customs Act, 1962 which allows Customs officers to summon any
person for inquiry, treats those proceedings as “judicial proceedings”
equivalent to testimony before a court and permits the statements to be
used as substantive evidence in a trial. A confession made to a police
officer is inadmissible in court. However, a confession made to a
customs officer, if deemed voluntary, is admissible. That distinction is
settled by a line of Constitution Bench judgements; going back to
Ramesh Chandra Mehta v State of West Bengaland Illias v
Collector of Customs in the late 1960s reported as 1970 AIR
940. Wherein it was held that a confession recorded by a Customs
officer carries full evidentiary weight as substantive evidence, provided
it is found to be voluntary. The Bombay High Court though in the case
of The Assistant Collector of Customs v Hasanali Rumi, reported
as 2019 Nearlaw (Bom.H.C) online 2880 in criminal appeal no
136/1995 where Justice K.R. Shriram, upholding an acquittal, asked:
If courts were to simply accept Section 108 statements as “gospel
truth”, why would there be a need to hold a trial at all? However, the
issue of Section 108 confessions returned to the Supreme Court.
8. Hon’ble Court in Amad Noormamad Bakali v State of
Gujarat, Supreme Court in criminal appeal no. 1232-1237 of
2012 vide judgment dated 23.02.2026 reiterated that confession
made to Customs officer is admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court
reaffirmed one of the most contested principles in Indian evidence law
placing reliance on K.I. Pavunny v Assistant Collector (HQ),
Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin 1997 AIR online 756 SC, the
Court held that statements recorded 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
8

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
9

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 that such interrogation does not, by
itself, infringe the right to life and personal liberty.
10. In the present case apparently and admittedly there is no
retraction of the CHA appellant nor of its director Shri Ashish Gupta
from their statements given under Section 108, to the custom officers.
It is apparent from the said statement, that the appellant, had admitted
about suggesting three of the importers for classifying the impugned
goods/Areca Nuts under CTH 21069030 classification instead of those
being classified under CTH 08028090 (processed/ partially rehydrated/
treated/ boiled supari/ areca nuts). The CRCL Report and also from
Areca Nut Research and Development Foundation, Mangalore the
imported goods were broken cut pieces of Areca Nuts of
9

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
10

substandard/inferior quality with such moisture content as doesn’t
match the goods of CTH 21069030. This documentary evidence also
corroborates the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Custom
Act. Appellant have not produced any document to falsify the said
documents nor have produced any evidence of any kind of coercion
being exercised upon them while their statements were getting
recorded. From the such voluntary statements which otherwise stand
corroborated by the statements of the importers who also have not
retracted their statements nor have come forward to challenge the
veracity of the impugned orders it is clearly established that the
appellant knowingly recommended the wrong classification of the areca
nuts so as to extend the wrong exemption benefit of notification
50/2017 S.No 103 thereof to the importers with the sole purpose to
remain competitive in the market and to get more business of custom
clearance from the importer of areca nuts.
11. The Custom House Agents are otherwise the representatives not
only of the importers/ exporters but they are the agents for the custom
department also. The Hon’ble High Court Bombay in the case of CC
(General vs World Wide Areca Manufacturer) report as 2010
(253) ELT 190 has upheld the liability of the CHA wherein it was held
that irrespective it is the right of a citizen to carry on his business of
profession but the right is subject to reasonable restrictions and
conditions. Where the CHA appears to have brazenly acted even while
defending the acts of his employees and simultaneously supporting the
importers to make illegal imports, the Tribunal is not supposed to
interfere with the order of departmental authorities passed against the
CHA. Hon’able Apex Court also in the case of Commissioner of
10

C/50286 & 2 OTHERS of 2025
11

Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra & Co. reported as 2016 (332) ELT 15
(SC) has held that:
“CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. Since
the Customs procedures are complicated, the importers have to deal
with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well
as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his
goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and
time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the
importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the
importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To
ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations
are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out
obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even
without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the
punishment listed in the Regulations.

12. Based on the entire above discussion it is held that the
department has sufficiently proved that the alleged act of advising the
importers about misclassification and under-valuation was done
knowingly and intentionally by the appellants. The penalties under
Section 112A (ii) and under 114 AA are imposable if and only if there is
knowledge and intention on part of the CHA to let the importer make
illegal imports. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the orders under
challenge where the penalties upon appellant CHA, its director Shri
Ashish Gupta have been imposed under both the said provision of
Customs Act. As a result of entire above discussion, we hereby upheld
the impugned order. Consequently, three of the appeals herein are
hereby dismissed.
(order pronounced on 02.09.2026)



(RACHNA GUPTA)
OFFICIATING PRESIDENT

swati

11