Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th September, 2025
49743/2025 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS EXPORT .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, SSC
Through: Mr. Navneet Panwar, Adv
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal, filed by the Customs Department under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962, arises out of the impugned judgment dated 18th October 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’) in Customs Appeal No. 50016/2020 titled ‘Commissioner of Customs, ACC Export Commissionerate v. Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Vin Global Logistics’. Vide the impugned judgment, the CESTAT rejected the prayer of the Appellant for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Respondent.
3. This Court has already considered an appeal being CUSAA 108/2025 titled ‘Ravindra Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)’ filed by Mr. Ravindra Kumar against the very same impugned judgment. This Court had rejected the said Appeal, vide judgment dated 12th August 2025.
4. The present case arises out of a specific intelligence regarding illegal export of ‘Red Sanders’ which is stated to have been received by the Customs Department. Based on the said intelligence, certain consignments were intercepted which on examination were found to contain ‘Red Sandal Wood’ or ‘Red Sanders’. However, the supporting documents which were filed in respect of the same had declared the goods therein as ‘household goods’.
5. Red Sandal Wood has been recognised as an ‘endangered’ species under the international convention CITES and without a proper valid export certificate it cannot be exported.
6. The baggage declaration which was filed in the name of Mr. Vipin Dua was investigated and it was found that the airway bill was booked in the name M/s Sikki Auto India Pvt. Ltd. The said name itself was allegedly a forged name. One Mr. Sarvesh Kumar who was the Customs Broker had prepared all the documentation. Mr. Ravinder Kumar of M/s Vin Global Logistics was a freight forwarder who is also the Appellant before the Court. He had provided the documents to Mr. Mayank Gupta of M/s Sky Barge Freight Pvt. Ltd. who is another freight forwarder, who then filed the airway bill in the name of the fictitious company.
7. The entire consignment was seized and penalties were also imposed on various other individuals who were involved in the chain of preparing the documents for exporting as also the other entities involved. The Order-in- Original was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 25th July 2019 inter alia imposing a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the Appellant. The operative portion of the Order-in-Original reads as under:
the Customs Act, 1962.”
8. The above Order-in-Original was challenged by various parties including the Respondent herein. However, CESTAT has disposed of the appeals vide order dated 18th October 2024, in the following terms:
”
9. As can be seen from the above, a penalty of Rs.10 lakh has been imposed on the Respondent under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the prayer for imposition of further penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 has been rejected. Hence, the present appeal.
10. The Court has considered the matter. The role of Mr. Ravindra Kumar has been discussed in the impugned judgment of the CESTAT. The same reads as under:
sanders were attempted to be exported using fake baggage declarations filed in the name of Shri Vipin Dua without his knowledge and fake airway bills filed in the name of fictitious company M/s Sikki Auto. Later, in order to align the two documents, letters were given to change the consignor, consignee and description of goods in the airway bill. Shri Ravindra Kumar was a key player in arranging the fake airway bills through Shri Mayank Gupta at the behest of Shri Sarvesh Kumar. We have no manner of doubt that but for these actions of Ravindra Kumar the attempted export of red sanders would not have been possible. Therefore, the Commissioner was correct in imposing penalty under section 114 of the Act on Shri Ravindra Kumar.
37. As far as the penalty under section 114 AA of the Act is concerned, this can be imposed only if the knowledge of the person is established and the misdeclaration was in respect of a document filed for the purposes of the Act. In this case, the document filed for the purpose of Act is the baggage declaration. The role of Shri Ravindra Kumar was in getting the airway bill filed which was the document related to the airlines. Therefore, we do not find that any penalty was imposable on section 114AA of the Act. The Commissioner was correct in not imposing penalty on him under this section.”
11. A perusal of the above extraction reveals Mr. Ravindra Kumar, in fact:
(i) Facilitated the procurement of documents from Shri Sarvesh
(ii) Arranged for the issuance of airway bills in the name of the fictitious entity M/s Sikki Auto, and
(iii) Subsequently coordinated changes to consignor/consignee details and goods description to align with a fake baggage declaration filed in the name of Shri Vipin Dua.
12. Considering the role played by Mr. Ravindra Kumar, this Court is of the opinion that a penalty of Rs.10 lakh, which has already been imposed and has been upheld by the Court, would be sufficient penalty. Further penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 would entail five times the value of goods being imposed upon the Respondent.
13. In view of the limited role played by Mr. Ravindra Kumar, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty under Section 114A of the Act has been rightly imposed on the Respondent.
14. Hence, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal. However, the question of law raised in the present appeal is left open to be considered in an appropriate proceeding.
15. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 kk/ck