ANUBHAV CARGO MOVERS vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIRPORT & GENERAL-NEW DELHI

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL


NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – I

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51013 OF 2025

[Arising out of Order-in-Original no. 10/VPS/Policy/2025 dt. 27.02.2025
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import and General), New Custom
House, New Delhi]

M/s. Anubhav Cargo Movers … Appellant
C-92, Sector 20, NOIDA
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh 201301
VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs
(Import & General) ..Respondent
New Custom House,
Near IGI Airport
New Delhi


APPEARANCE:
Shri Ramchander Sankhla and Shri Rahul Sankla Counsel for the
Appellant

Shri Amit Arora, Authorised Representative for the Revenue

CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, OFFICIATING PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 6.10.2026
DATE OF DECISION:28 .10.2026


FINAL ORDER NO. 51635/2026

P V SUBBA RAO

1
M/S. Anubhav Cargo Movers filed this appeal to assail
2
the Order dated 27.2.2025 passed by the Commissioner of
Customs (Import & General) under Regulations 14 & 18 and
Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations,
3
2018 revoking the Customs Broker licence of the appellant,
forfeiting the security deposit made by the appellant and
imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant.

1 Appellant
2 Impugned order
3 CBLR

2

2. The Commissioner passed the impugned order for the
reason that he found that the appellant had violated Regulations
10(d) and 10 (e) of the CBLR which read as follows:
“10. Obligations of Customs Broker .— A Customs Broker
shall —
……..
(d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act,
other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in
case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of
the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner
of Customs, as the case may be;
(e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any
information which he imparts to a client with reference to any
work related to clearance of cargo or baggage;”
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed two
Bills of Entry dated 20.10.2020 and 13.01.2021 at Inland
4
Container Depot , Dadri on behalf the importer M/s. Anil
Enterprises for import of ‘Boiled Betelnuts’ imported from
5
Indonesia classifying them under Customs Tariff Item 2106
90 30 and the goods were cleared.
4. After almost an year, on 2.12.2022, a Show Cause Notice
was issued to the importer and to the appellant proposing to re-
classify them under CTI 0802 80 and recover the differential
duty with interest and to impose penalties both on the importer
and on the appellant. The proposals in the SCN were decided by
Assistant Commissioner (Policy), NOIDA Customs
Commissionerate and a copy of that order was sent to the
Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi.
Treating the order as an offence report, the Commissioner issued
an SCN dated 18.9.2024 proposing action against the appellant
under CBLR. Shri Jitender Kumar, Assistant Commissioner was

4 ICD
5 CTI

3

appointed as the Inquiry Officer and he submitted his report on
3.12.2024 stating that the appellant had violated Regulations
10(d) and 10(e) of CBLR.
5. After considering the report of the inquiry officer and the
submissions made by the appellant, the Commissioner passed
the impugned order.
Submissions of the appellant
6. Learned counsels for the appellant made the following
submissions:
(i) No malafide can be attributed to the appellant in
matters of classification as it is only a matter of
interpretation.
(ii) The classification of betel nuts was done by the
appellant as per its understanding. It was open to the
proper officer to re-assess the goods.
(iii) Although the goods were cleared through self-
assessment, even if the self-assessment is not correct,
it cannot be treated as a violation.
(iv) In every Bill of Entry even when the goods are

cleared on the basis of self-assessment, instructions are
issued by the system to the officer giving out of charge
of the Customs. In the Bills of Entry, the instructions
included to verify the classification of the imported
goods under 2106. The goods were given out of charge.
Evidently, the officer giving out of charge was also
satisfied that the classification of the goods was correct.
(v) In a similar issue, the Commissioner, ICD,
Dadri has revoked the suspension of another Customs
Broker.
(vi) There was no violation of Regulations 10(d) and
10(e) of CBLR by the appellant.

4

(vii) The impugned order may be set aside and the
appeal may be allowed.
(viii) The Commissioner may also be directed to
unblock the appellant’s Customs Broker details on the
ICEGATE portal so that the appellant can immediately
start operating.
Submissions of the Revenue
7. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue
vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that it
calls for no interference. He submitted as follows:
(i) As the Customs broker, the appellant had to fulfil all
the obligations under Regulation 10 of the CBLR.
(ii) Regulation 10(d) requires the Customs broker
to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the
Act and Rules and in case of non-compliance, report to
the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.
(iii) The appellant failed to advise its client, the
importer and classified the imported boiled betelnuts
under CTI 2106 90 30 when the correct classification
was CTH 0802 80 which had implications in terms of
duty, Minimum Import Price prescribed by the DGFT,
etc.
(iv) By failing to advise the importer correctly, the
appellant had violated Regulation 10(d).
(v) Regulation 10(e) requires the customs broker
to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of
any information which he imparts to a client with
reference to any work relating to Customs clearance.
(vi) The appellant had not advised the client about
the correct classification and thus violated Regulation
10(e).
(vii) The impugned order may be upheld and the
appeal may be dismissed.

5

Findings
8. We have considered the submissions advanced by both
sides.
9. Classification of the goods is a part of the assessment
6
under the Customs Act, 1962 . This should be done by the
importer himself (self assessment) as per section 17 and the
proper officer can re-assess the duty. This section reads as
follows:
“Section 17. Assessment of duty. -
(1) An importer entering any imported goods under
section 46 , or an exporter entering any export goods
under section 50 , shall, save as otherwise provided in
section 85 , self-assess the duty, if any, leviable on such
goods.
(2) The proper officer may verify the entries made under section
46 or section 50 and the self assessment of goods referred to in
sub-section (1) and for this purpose, examine or test any
imported goods or export goods or such part thereof as may be
necessary.
Provided that the selection of cases for verification shall primarily
be on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection
criteria.
(3) For the purposes of verification under sub-section (2), the
proper officer may require the importer, exporter or any other
person to produce any document or information, whereby the
duty leviable on the imported goods or export goods, as the case
may be, can be ascertained and thereupon, the importer,
exporter or such other person shall produce such document or
furnish such information.
(4) Where it is found on verification, examination or
testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-
assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may,
without prejudice to any other action which may be taken
under this Act, re-assess the duty leviable on such goods.
(5) Where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is
contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter
and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as
the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-
assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking
order on the re-assessment, within fifteen days from the date of
re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case
may be.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that in cases where an importer has entered any imported goods
under section 46 or an exporter has entered any export goods

6 Act

6

under section 50 before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011
receives the assent of the President, such imported goods or
export goods shall continue to be governed by the provisions of
section 17 as it stood immediately before the date on which such
assent is received.”
10. Section 17 (4) itself provides for re-assessment by the
officer as a remedy for any wrong self-assessment by the
importer. Unlike the customs officers, the importers or customs
brokers are not experts and may make mistakes in self-
assessment. It can be remedied through re-assessment under
section 17(4) before the goods are cleared for home consumption
or by modifying the assessment through an appeal to the
Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128 of the Act or through
a notice issued under section 28 of the Act.
11. Assessment involves stating some facts such as the nature

of the goods, quantity, value, etc. and expressing some opinions
such as classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff,
applicable exemption notifications, etc. Insofar as the facts are
concerned, the importer has to state correct facts and cannot
wrongly assess duty by stating incorrect facts. For instance, if
one imported 20 MT and declares it as 15 MT or imports good ‘A’
and declares it as good ‘B’, it is clearly a mis-declaration and
action is warranted.
12. Insofar as any Customs broker is concerned, he only has
the documents with him and has no power to open and inspect
the goods. He must diligently declare the nature of the goods,
quantity, etc. as per the documents available with him. He
cannot know, in the normal course of business if the goods
actually imported were more or different from what is declared. It
is a different matter if there is evidence that the Customs broker

7

connived to mis-declare or the Customs broker becomes aware of
mis-declaration and does not bring it to the notice of the officers.
13. The importer or Customs Broker can only classify the goods
as per their understanding. The Act does not require the importer
or customs broker to do the impossible task of anticipating if the
proper officer would accept his classification or not and if he does
not accept, which classification he would find proper and file the
Bills of Entry in accordance with the anticipated classification by
the proper officer. It is even more impossible for the importer or
the customs broker to anticipate that after the goods are cleared,
at some stage, during the investigation, the classification will be
disputed and if so, which classification the adjudicating authority
would ultimately decide and based on such future anticipated
decision, file the Bills of Entry. There is no obligation under the
Customs Act either on the importer or on the Customs Broker to
anticipate the officers’ decisions in this fashion and conform to
such anticipated decisions while filing the Bills of Entry.
14. If we look at the two competing entries, the appellant
classified the betelnut under 2106 90 30 and the department
classified under 0802 80 which read as follows:
2106 90 30 Betel nut product known as “Supari”
0802 80 -- Arecanuts
15. Arecanut is the fruit of tree Areca catechu which is known
in Hindi as Supari. Both classifications are plausible and further
detailed examination of the chapter notes, section notes, Rules of
Interpretation, etc. can help classify the imported goods under
one or the other. Simply because the Customs broker or importer
took one view and the adjudicating authority took another view,

8

it does not prove any wrongdoing on the part of the importer or
customs broker.
16. It also needs to be noted that in the Bills of Entry, the
instructions to the Out of Charge officer included to verify if the
goods fell under 2106 and the Out of Charge was given.
Therefore, it is possible that the officer who had given out of
charge was also of the opinion that 2106 was the correct
heading.
17. Coming to the alleged violations of the appellant under
CBLR, Regulation 10(d) requires the customs broker to advise his
client to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules and in
case of non-compliance, report to the Assistant Commissioner.
The case of the department is that the appellant failed to advise
him about the correct classification of the goods.
18. We do not find that the appellant failed to advise about the
correct classification of the goods. The appellant classified the
goods as per his understanding. The appellant failed to foresee
that after a year or so, some officer of the department would
reopen the case and further failed to foresee what classification
the officer would find appropriate and based on such foresight,
advise his client. Needless to say that such foresight and
anticipation are humanly impossible and there is no obligation on
the Customs Broker to have such a vision into the future or to
read the minds of the officers and advise his client accordingly.
19. Thus, we find that the appellant did not violate Regulation
10(d) of CBLR.
20. Regulation 10(e) requires the Customs Broker to exercise
due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information

9

which he imparts to the client. The case against the appellant is
that he did not exercise such due diligence in advising the client
about the classification of the betelnuts.
21. Our finding in paragraph 17 above also answers the
question if the appellant had violated Regulation 10(e). The
answer is negative.
22. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and
allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Since
it is a matter which is affecting the livelihood of the appellant, we
direct the Commissioner to do the needful to enable the appellant
to file documents in the ICEGATE immediately.
(Order pronounced on 28.10.2026)

(RACHNA GUPTA)
OFFICIATING PRESIDENT





(P. V. SUBBA RAO)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Tejo