01Facts
Sushil Gautam, a salaried G-Card holder employed by Customs Broker M/s Ambe Freight Pvt. Ltd., filed six Bills of Entry for consignments connected with M/s Giga Export Services, based on documents supplied by Mahesh Ramji Bhanushali.
¶ 2–3The documents were found to be forged, and the importer was non-existent at its declared address.
¶ 2–3Gautam admitted that he had not verified the KYC documents against the originals and had filed the entries without informing the broker’s F-Card holder.
¶ 6–7The Commissioner imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 on him under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
¶ 6–702Issues
i.Whether Gautam’s failure to verify the importer’s KYC documents before filing the Bills of Entry supported a penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962
¶ 6–7ii.Whether the penalty should be reduced in view of Gautam’s role as a salaried G-Card holder and his financial circumstances
¶ 803Law Applied
Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for a penalty where a person, by an act or omission, renders goods liable to confiscation.
¶ 7Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires verification of a client’s antecedents, correctness of the Importer Exporter Code, and functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data, or information.
¶ 7The Tribunal distinguished physical verification of the address—which it held was not required—from verification of KYC documents against the originals, which it treated as necessary to comply with Regulation 10(n).
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Customs Act,1962 Section 124Section 112Section 108
04Reasoning
The Tribunal held that the setting aside of the broker’s licence revocation did not automatically extinguish Gautam’s personal liability.
¶ 7The evidence showed that Gautam independently filed the Bills of Entry, used his own ID and dongle, and did not inform the F-Card holder.
¶ 7He also admitted that he had not verified the KYC documents against the originals, which did not match the original PAN and Aadhaar documents.
¶ 7Although physical verification of the declared address was not required, the failure to verify the KYC documents amounted to a breach of Regulation 10(n), supporting the penalty.
¶ 7The Tribunal nevertheless considered the original amount excessive given Gautam’s salaried position and stated financial circumstances.
¶ 805Holding
The Tribunal found Gautam liable for the KYC-verification failure but reduced the penalty under Section 112(a)(i) from ₹1,00,000 to ₹5,000.
¶ 8–9It modified the impugned order to that extent and allowed the appeal to that extent.
¶ 8–9Original Court PDF
SUSHIL GAUTAMvsPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM IMPORT-NEW DELHI ICD TKD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
