Allowed

Sunrise Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Customs (Preventive)-Jaipur I

CESTAT23 Mar 2026C/52059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on a customs broker firm for export of prohibited red sanders misdeclared as stone pillars. This Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that penalties are not imposable as the broker's license proceedings were dropped and there was no evidence of knowledge regarding the contraband stuffed in factory-sealed consignments.

What did the court decide?

Penalties imposed on the appellants were dropped and the impugned order imposing penalties was set aside.

Sunrise Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner, Customs… — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

¶2

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

¶3

PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. II

¶4

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52059 OF 2022

¶5

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.20-24(SM)/CUS/JPR/2022 dated 23.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur]

¶6

M/s SUNRISE FREIGHT FORWARDERS PVT LTD ….APPELLANT A-1023, Surya Bhawan, Road No.6, Village-Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110 037

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), …RESPONDENT Jodhpur HQRS: NCR Building,

¶9

Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302 005

¶10

APPEARANCE:

¶11

Dr. Prabhat Kumar and Shri Pralabh Mathur, Advocates for the appellant Shri Anand Narayan, Authorised Representative for the respondent

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶13

FINAL ORDER NO.50418/2026

¶14

Date of Hearing/Decision: 23.03.2026

¶15

ASHOK JINDAL:

¶16

All the appeals are arise out of common order, therefore, all are disposed of by a common order.

¶17

The facts of the case are that appellant No. 4 M/s Sunrise Private Limited was having a valid broker license and was engaged in the Business of Customs broker facilitation and clearance of export and import consignments, the Appellant no.5 is the Managing Director of the Appellant no. 4 and the Appellant no. 1 to 3 are employees of the Appellant no. 4 on 07.01.2019. The Appellants filed shipping bills on behalf of M/s Jogania

¶18

¶19

Exports, whose proprietor is Shri Pradeep H. Chourt. The exporter had obtained authorization from the Custom Authorities for self-sealing in Factory vide authoritisation No.C.No.VIII(H)48/CT/MISCJAIPUR/104/2017/288 dated 02.01.2018. Pursuant to specific intelligence indicating that the exporter has involved in the export of prohibited goods, namely red sanders. The DRI detained the consignment on 10.1.2019. On examination of the above said consignment on 11.01.2019, in the presence of the appellant no. 1, it was found that the consignment contained red sanders logs, which has been misdeclared as “Stone Pillars” in the shipping bills, the statements of all the appellants were recorded. During the investigation it was found that the appellant no.4 obtains on letter head from the name of M/s Jogania Exports and the name was written as Joganiya instead of Jogania, and it was alleged that appellants have not performed their duties as Customs Brokers properly, therefore, penalty was proposed under relevant sections and by adjudication, the penalties on the appellants were imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appeals are before me.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the appellants, on behalf of the appellants, submits that proceedings under CBLR, 2018 were initiated against the Appellant no. 4 and the Customs Broken license of the Appellant no.4 was initially suspended bar after post-decisional hearing, the suspension was revoked, but a penalty of Rs.50,000 was imposed under Regulation 18 of the Custom Broker CBLR, 2018. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal, and this Tribunal vide order No. 51002/2019 dated 06.08.2019, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant No. 4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that when the proceedings under CBLR have been dropped, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellant under Customs Act, as it was found by the Adjudicating Authority in the proceedings of CBLR that there was no fault of the

¶21

¶22

appellant and it was not in the knowledge of the appellant what the goods in the consignment were, having red sanders log Therefore, it is prayed that penalties of all the appellants be set aside.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Department strongly opposed the contention of the learned Counsels for the appellants and submitted that Shri Surendra Gupta was having knowledge of stuffing of red sanders as during the course of investigation he admitted that in the front portion of the consignment stone pillars were loaded and stated that the back portion of the goods should not be examined and on that pretext the goods were cleared for export, but during the course of investigation by DRI, it was found that in the back portion of the consignment, red sanders logs were present, therefore, it was in the knowledge of Shri Surendra Gupta that red sanders were being exported as contraband goods. It is further submitted that, penalty is impossible as Surendra Gupta was also involved in some other export where red sanders logs were found for export.

¶24

Heard the parties.

¶25

In this case, the exporter namely Jogania Exports, Bhilwara, had sent two consignments for export through appellant No. 4, which were factory-sealed consignments and during the course of investigation, the seal was found intact. The appellant has also obtained KYC of the exporter such as IEC, PAN card, Bank Account, Adhar card and Self-sealing permission, which were found to be genuine. In these circumstances, the Revenue has failed to bring on record that the appellant No.4 or its director having any knowledge of export of contraband or details of the goods being stuffed in the consignment, furthermore, the proceedings initiated against the appellant No. 4 under CBLR, 2018 have already been dropped. In these circumstances, I hold that in the absence of any evidence on record of having any knowledge of the appellants and as the

¶26

¶27

seals were found to be intact, penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 are not imposable on the appellants.

¶28

In view of this, the penalties on the appellants are dropped. Consequently, the impugned order qua imposing penalties on the appellants before me is set aside by allowing the appeal.

¶29

[Order dictated and pronounced in open court]

¶30

(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶31

Sunrise Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Customs (Preventive)-Jaipur I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunrise Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Customs (Preventive)-Jaipur I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ingram Micro India P Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai(Air Cargo Import)

Ingram Micro India P Ltd. vs -Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai(Air Cargo Import)

Ms Newby Teas Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs Kolkata-Port

Ingram Micro India P Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai(Air Cargo Import)

Daya Exports vs Noida- Appeal

Sanjay Kulthia vs Mumbai-Prev

Sigma Exports vs Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - II

Jsw Steel Ltd. vs Mumbai(Prev)