SUSHIL GAUTAM vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM IMPORT-NEW DELHI ICD TKD

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO.IV

CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 50536 OF 2024

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.59/2023/VCG Pr. Commr./ICD-Import/TKD dated
19.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (ACC Import), New Delhi)

Sushil Gautam Appellant
S/o Momraj Gautam
R/o 177, 178, FF-202, KH No. 306,
Pandav Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201002


Vs.



Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD-
Import, Tughlakabad, New Delhi
ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020
Respondent



Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri N. K. Sharma and Shri Kapil Gautam, Advocates
Present for the Respondent: Shri N. M. Goel, Authorised Representative

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 51665/2026

Date of Hearing: 07.10.2026

Date of Decision:04.11.2026


HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA
1
Sushil Gautam is in appeal against the Order-in-Original
No.59/2023/VCG Pr. Commr./ICD-Import/TKD dated 19.12.2023
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ACC Import) New Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a G-Card
holder of M/s Ambe Freight Pvt. Ltd. and employed as a salaried

1 The appellant

2


employee of the said Customs Broker, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.
18,000/. In the present case, Shri Mahesh Ramji Bhanushali
approached the Appellant at the ICD Tughlakabad, and requested him
to process the customs documentation pertaining to the subject
consignments. Shri Mahesh Bhanushali provided all relevant import
documents, including invoices, packing lists, bills of lading, IEC copy,
and other supporting documents. A Show Cause Notice No. 128/2023-
24/Commr./ICD/TKD dated 13.09.2022 was issued to the appellant
under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that the
appellant, along with Shri Ratan Singh (F-Card holder of M/s Ambe
Freight Pvt. Ltd.), had aided, abetted, and assisted Shri Mahesh Ramji
Bhanushali and M/s GIGA Export Services in the alleged smuggling of
goods, thereby rendering themselves liable to penalty under Sections
112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The noticee no. 2 was
liable to penalty under section 112 (a)(i) of Custom Act 1962. It was
alleged that Shri Sushil Gautam had failed to verify the documents
provided by the noticee no. 2 and filed the Bills of Entry without
bringing the same to the knowledge of Shri Ratan Singh, the Customs
Broker. Hence, a penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- was imposed upon the
appellant under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the proceedings
were also initiated against the Customs Broker, M/s Ambe Freight Pvt.
Ltd., and its F-Card holder, Shri Ratan Singh, under the provisions of
the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations. Aggrieved by the Order-in-
Original No. 01/ZR/POLICY/2023 dated 17.01.2023, the F-Card

3


holder/Customs Broker preferred an appeal before CESTAT. The
CESTAT, after considering the facts held that the punishment of
revocation of Customs Broker Licence was not sustainable, and set
aside the order. He contended that the appellant stood on a stronger
footing, being merely a salaried G-Card holder drawing a monthly
salary. Learned counsel submitted that when the CESTAT had already
set aside that the revocation of licence against the Customs Broker/F-
Card holder, the imposition of penalty upon the appellant, in the
absence of any evidence of conscious knowledge, mens rea, active
connivance, or deliberate abetment, was unsustainable. He further
added that the findings recorded in the impugned order itself
acknowledged that the investigation had not adduced any evidence to
establish that Shri Sushil Gautam had prior knowledge of the import of
misdeclared goods or that he had knowingly and intentionally filed Bills
of Entry on the basis of fake documents. The only allegation against
the appellant was that he had failed to verify the documents supplied
by Shri Mahesh Ramji Bhanushali before filing the Bills of Entry. Such
omission, cannot by itself attract penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of
the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of proof of conscious
involvement or intentional abetment. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:-
 Triveni Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport &
2
General), New Delhi .
3
 Friends Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs .

2 (2024) 19 CENTAX 178 (Tri.-Del.)
3 (2025) 31 CENTAX 211 (Tri.-Del.)

4


4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department
submitted that the two limbs of Section 112(a) covered anyone who
"does or omits to do any act" rendering goods confiscable. Mens rea
was not an ingredient of this limb, as admitted by Shri Rajeev Khatri.
Learned AR stated that on 09.05.2022, the appellant had stated that
the correctness of documents or the importer's address, was not
verified as per Regulation 10(n). Learned AR submitted that the
appellant had signed the KYC copies, where the PAN
signature/photograph and Aadhaar photograph did not match the
originals. He further stated that there was no unit at the declared
address, as revealed by the verification by the Department. Learned
AR stated that the appellant had solicited the order for commercial
gains, filed the documents "instantly", and had kept the F-card holder
uninformed, used an independent ID and dongle, and stayed silent out
of fear of the Customs alert, which showed his awareness of risk. On
29.03.2022, the appellant had submitted that the KYC was tallied with
originals and then on 09.05.2022, he stated that he had not verified
correctness or address. Learned AR contended that Section 114AA had
already been dropped in the appellant’s favour. The Department's
case was legally and factually established, and supported by
admissible confessions, and corroborated by documentary evidence
and case law. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant was devoid of
merit and deserve to be dismissed in full.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned AR
for the Department and perused the records.

5


6. As per impugned order, we note that the allegations & findings in
respect of appellant are as follows:-
“2.11.2 During the investigation Sh. Sushil Gautam, G-
card holder vide his statement dated 29.03.2022 and
09.05.2022 stated that Sh Mahesh Ramji Bhanushali had
given copy of documents related to M/s Giga Export
Services. It is noticed that the documents related to M/s
Giga Export Services have been created on
morphed/forged documents. Further vide his statement
dated 09.05.2022 Sh Sushil Gautam stated that he did not
verify the documents, address physically and complete
KYC of the M/s Giga Export Services which is in violation
to the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2018 due to
this negligence the above mentioned goods have been
filed in customs for clearance under the above six Bills of
Entry. During the investigation it is found that the firm
M/s Giga Export service [IEC-ETIPK3912A] are found non-
existent at the registered address and the firm has been
created on the morphed/forged documents of Sh.
Dhirendra Kumar. As the signature on the original Pan
card of Sh. Dhirendra Kumar does not match with the
signature of the copy of pan card as provided in the
documents of KYC of M/s Giga Export Service by Sh Sushil
Gautam (G-card). Even when Sh. Sushil Gautam (G-card),
Sh Mahesh Ramji Bhanushali and Rattan Singh Bisht, F-
Card holder were cross-examined with Sh. Dhirendra
Kumar, all of them stated that they do not know Sh.
Dhirendra Kumar and had never met him before.

Further in the investigation Sh. Rattan Singh Bisht, F-card
holder of Custom Broker firm M/s Ambe Freight Pvt Ltd
statement dated 29.03.2022 and 09.05.2022 stated that
Sh. Sushil Gautam, G- card holder had filed above
mentioned six Bills of Entry without his knowledge.
Further he vide his statement dated 09.05.2022 stated
that he did not verify the documents, address physically
and completed KYC of the M/s Giga Export Services under
the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2018, and he did
not monitor the activity of his G-card holder Sh. Sushil
Gautam. Due to his negligence the above impugned goods
have been filed in customs for clearance under the above
six Bills of Entry. Further, vide order-in- original:
44/ZR/suspension/policy/2022 dated 08.07.2022 the
Customs Broker license No R-13/DEL/CUS/2021
(PAN:AAUCA1152A) valid upto 27.01.2031 of M/s Ambe
Freights Pvt Ltd was suspended and the said Customs
Broker firm was also directed to surrendered all F/G/H
card issued by them. Further, vide order order-in-original
48/ZR/suspension-confirmation/policy/2022 dated
26.07.2022 confirmed the suspension of Customs Broker
License No R-13/DEL/CUS/2021 (PAN:AAUCA1152A).

From the above facts, it is evident that by the way of act
of omission and commission Sh. Sushil Gautam, G-Card
holder of M/s Ambe Freight Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Rattan Singh
Bisht, F-card of M/s Ambe Freight Pvt. Ltd. engaged in the

6


activity of aiding, abetting and assisting to Sh. Mahesh
Ramji Bhanushali and the firm i.e M/s GIGA Export
Services in their illegal activities of smuggling of goods
and thus have rendered themselves liable to penalty
under Section 112 (a)(i) & 114AA of the Customs Act,
1962.”

xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

7.2.2 I notice that the documents related to M/s Giga
Export Services have been created on morphed/forged
documents. There was not unit of M/s Giga Export
Services at the declared address. Shri Sushil Gautam did
not verify the documents, address physically and
completed KYC of the M/s Giga Export Services which is in
violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker
Licensing Regulations 2018 due to this negligence the
above mentioned goods have been filed in customs for
clearance under the above six Bills of Entry.

7.2.3 I find that Shri Sushil Gautam, in his statement
dated 29.03.2022 had admitted that the Bills of Entry
were filed by their Custom Broker Company. He also
admitted that Sh. Mahesh Ramji Bhanushali approached
him, who met him at ICD, Tughlakabad customs office
and requested him for filing the documents for the import
of said consignments and provided him the details of the
said consignments viz. invoices, packing list, Bill of Lading
and copy of IEC etc. he also admitted that he did not bring
it to the knowledge of Sh. Rattan Singh Bisht, F-Card of
Custom Broker firm. He accepted to file the same so that
he and their company gets more benefit in the throat cut
competition and back ground of earlier import were neat
and clean, therefore, he accepted the offer of the importer
and filed the Bill of entries instantly without knowledge of
their Custom Broker. I noticed that the documents related
to M/s Giga Export Services have been created on
morphed/forged documents. Therefore, Shri Sushil
Gautam did not verify the documents, address physically
and complete KYC of the M/s Giga Export Services which
is in violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker
Licensing Regulations 2018 due to this negligence the
above mentioned goods have been filed in customs for
clearance under the above six Bills of Entry.”

7. Learned counsel has strongly pleaded that as the Tribunal has
set-aside the revocation of the Customs Broker License, hence, the
penalty on the appellant automatically extinguishes. The argument is
persuasive but the same has to be seen from the facts of the case. It
is on record that the appellant, a G-Card holder of the Customs Broker

7


had filed the documents. It is also on record that he was aware of the
Customs alert, but did not inform his F-Card holder. This is
corroborated by Shri Rattan Singh Bisht in his statement dated
29.03.2022. In this statement, he has further stated that the
appellant had filed the Bills of Entries using his own ID & used
independent dongle for digital signature. All this establishes the fact
that the F-Card and Customs Broker holder was not involved in the
said transaction. What comes out is that the appellant had
independently carried out the filing of these documents. Further, it is
also on record that the original PAN and Aadhar of M/s Giga KYC
Export proprietor did not match with the KYC document submitted by
the appellant while filing the Bills of Entries. In his statement dated
09.05.2022 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the
appellant had submitted that he had not verified the same. As regards
the address not being genuine, it is now settled law that the Customs
Broker is not expected to physically verify the address. However, it is
an admitted fact that the KYC documents were not verified with the
original by the appellant, which is a violation of Regulation 10(n) of the
CBLR, 2018. Hence, we are of the view that the appellant had violated
the provisions of CBLR and is liable for penalty.
8. However, we also take note that the appellant was merely the G-
card holder, earning a salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. It has also
been submitted that his wife was unwell and was on dialysis. This is
corroborated by the F-card holder Shri. Ratan Singh in his statement
dated 29.03.2022. We find that the order has imposed Rs. 1,00,000/-

8


under Section 112(a) (i) which we are of the opinion is on the higher
side for a person on meager salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month.
9. In view of this financial condition, we reduce the penalty to Rs.
5,000/- only. The impugned order stands modified to that extent and
the appeal stands allowed to the said extent.
(Order pronounced on 04.11.2026 )

(AJAY SHARMA)
MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )



(HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)


G.Y.