Sudipta Bose vs Union Of India And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1184 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Sudipta Bose vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 February, 2026

OD-10

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

                                WPO/679/2025

                                SUDIPTA BOSE
                                      VS
                            UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : 19th February, 2026.
                                                                        Appearance:
                                                       Ms. Micky Chowdhary, Adv.
                                                                Mr. B, N. Pal, Adv.
                                                                ...for the petitioner

                                                      Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                              Ms. Ekta Sinha, Adv.
                                                      ...for the Customs Authorities

      The   Court:    Ms.    Sinha,   learned   Advocate   appearing     for   the

respondent/Customs Authorities has taken this Court through the voluntary

statements made by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was aware

of the difference in price declared by the exporter and the actual price at which

the energy drink bottles were sold in market.

She places reliance on regulation 10(e) of the Customs Broker Licensing

Regulation, 2018 and submits that a customs broker has a duty of due

diligence and that in case at hand the petitioner has failed to perform his duty

in accordance with the regulations by accepting the export documents despite

having knowledge about the gulf of difference in the price of the aforesaid

bottles.

Ms. Chowdhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner rejoins by

submitting that it will be evident from the scrutiny of the statements made by

the petitioner that the petitioner was shown the relevant website pertaining to

the aforesaid energy drink on the date of recording of his statements and that it

was in such context that the statement cited by the Customs Authorities was

made. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that

the petitioner knew about the alleged difference in price at the time of filing the

export documents and shipping bills. It is further submitted that in any case,

valuation does not form part of the duty required to be discharged by the

Customs Broker. Relying on a judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi

High Court in the case of KUNAL TRAVELS (CARGO) Versus C C (I & G), IGI

AIRPORT, NEW DELHI reported as 2017 (354) E. L. T. 447 (Del.) Ms.

Chowdhary submitted that valuation was not within the work domain of the

Customs Broker i.e. the petitioner in the case at hand and as such the order in

original could not have fastened any liability on the petitioner on such score.

Ms. Chowdhary further submits that the shipping bills were filed on

January 23, 2024 but the imported material arrived in a container the next day

i.e. January 24, 2024 and the voluntary statement of the petitioner was

recorded a month later on February 20, 2024. It is therefore submitted that it

is unreasonable to assume that the petitioner had knowledge about the price

variation at the time of filing the shipping bills.

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

List this matter once again on February 26, 2026.

(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)

S. Mandi