[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Sudipta Bose vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 January, 2026
OD-3
ORDER SHEET
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 : January 21, 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: This writ petition lays challenge to an order dated July 22,
2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), Kolkata
Customs (Port) Commissionerate whereby penalty to the tune of Rs.50 lakh
(Rupees Fifty lakh) has been imposed upon the petitioner.
Ms. Chowdhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that a notice dated February 13, 2025 had been issued to the petitioner calling
upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty would not be imposed
upon the petitioner on account the petitioner's failure "to perform due
diligence" in the case and for accepting export documents from an
2
unauthorised person without making any further effort to check for the
genuine existence of the exporter.
It is submitted that the petitioner replied to the said notice to show cause
on May 1, 2025 detailing therein his defence and contending that the petitioner
had exercised due diligence as also that the petitioner had not abetted in the
illegal act with which the petitioner was charged.
It is asserted that in the said reply, the petitioner referred to several
judgments of the Appellate Tribunal as well as of this Court to contend that
any liability accruing from any mis-declaration in a bill of entry or a shipping
bill could not be attributed to the customs broker and that the same was only
to be directed against the importer or the exporter.
The adjudicating authority took into consideration the petitioner's reply
to the notice to show cause and ultimately passed the order impugned thereby
imposing penalty of Rs.50 lakh (Rupees Fifty lakh) on the petitioner
Ms. Chowdhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that the order impugned has been passed in total violation of the principles of
natural justice, inasmuch as none of the submissions made by the petitioner
has been considered by the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that
although the petitioner's reply has been briefly recorded in the order impugned,
the content thereof has not been dealt with. It is further submitted that the
petitioner's specific stand to the effect that the petitioner being a customs
broker could not be visited with any penalty or liability on the ground of there
being any mis-declaration in any bill of entry or shipping bill has been
overruled on the basis of conjectural conclusions. It is submitted that the
3
adjudicating authority has not dealt with any of the judgments that the
petitioner has cited in support of his said contention.
Ms. Chowdhary relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Artee Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported at
2016 (332) E.L.T. 470 (Cal.) and submits that in a similar situation, the
Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to set aside the order passed by the
Customs Authority since the same had been passed without dealing with the
judgments cited by the petitioner in support of its contention.
It is further submitted by Ms. Chowdhary that the adjudicating authority
has imposed a higher standard of duty on the petitioner than the petitioner as
a custom broker is required to discharge, by holding that the petitioner has not
physically verified the firm of the exporter and has not met the exporter in
person.
Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs (Admn. & Airport), Kolkata Vs M/S Sunglory Agency
(CUSTA 13 of 2023 decided on October 11, 2023), it is submitted by Ms.
Chowdhary that a customs broker is not required to physically visit the
premises of each of its clients for verification and that verification using
documents and data information if the same are authentic, should be enough
to discharge the customs broker's obligations as regards verification.
It is further submitted by Ms. Chowdhary that the respondent/Customs
Authority while passing order impugned failed to take into consideration the
decision of the tribunal rendered in the case of World Cargo Movers Vs
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported at 2002 (139) E.L.T. 408 (Tri-Del)
whereby it was held that it is no part of the job of the customs broker to
compare the invoice price with the market price of identical goods for the
purpose of checking correctness of the value declared in export documents.
Relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Union Of
India And Others Vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. reported at 1992 Supp
(I) SCC 433, it is submitted that the adjudicating authority could not have
ignored the judgment of the tribunal in as much as it was bound thereby.
It is submitted that the adjudicating authority has reached the
conclusion in a most perverse manner and as such the order impugned should
be set aside.
Ms. Chowdhary has concluded her submissions. Ms. Mukherjee has
begun her submissions in reply. She is yet to conclude.
For continuation of arguments, list the matter once again on 29 th
January, 2026.
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
Kc/S.Mandi
