Allowed¶23

Nawal Kishore Singh v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Delhi HC18 Mar 2026CUSAA/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Customs Act 1962 Sections 112(a) and 114AA; penalty on Custom House Agent; employee of exonerated CHA cannot be penalised once employer exonerated on same evidence; CESTAT final order 10.08.2018 allowing Appeal C/50474/2018 Bhupinder Singh v. C C-New Delhi ICD TKD Export; Rs. 3 crore penalty; exoneration order attained finality, respondent did not challenge; phone calls Deepak Kumar Rishi and Nawal Kishore Singh 29.09.2011 to 30.10.2011; export 27.10.2011; Delhi HC CUSAA 8/2024 CM APPL. 6592/2024 & 6594/2024; appeal allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'a' and 'b'; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Present appeal stands allowed in terms of prayer clause 'a' and 'b'; pending applications disposed of accordingly. ¶23

Nawal Kishore Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Present appeal stands allowed in terms of prayer clause 'a' and 'b'; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 maintained by CESTAT against the appellant, admittedly an employee of the exonerated Custom House Agent Bhupinder Singh, could stand when the employer had been exonerated on the same evidence.

¶16

Court's answer

Since the appellant acted in assisting the export pursuant to his status as an employee of Bhupinder Singh, and the employer Bhupinder Singh has been exonerated, there is no reason to maintain the order (penalty) against the appellant.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The CESTAT order exonerating Bhupinder Singh from payment of penalty has attained finality as the respondent has not questioned it to date; therefore there is no impediment in the appellant claiming similar relief.

¶22

Key takeaways

On the very same set of evidence on which Bhupinder Singh was exonerated, the Court found nothing to justify CESTAT proceeding against the appellant and maintaining the penalty.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.) allowed CUSAA 8/2024 filed by Nawal Kishore Singh, an employee of Custom House Agent Bhupinder Singh, against the CESTAT order maintaining the penalty imposed on him under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT's final order dated 10.08.2018 had allowed Bhupinder Singh's Customs Appeal No. C/50474/2018 (Bhupinder Singh v. C C-New Delhi ICD TKD Export), exonerating him from a Rs. 3 crore penalty on the ground that there was no evidence to justify it; the respondent had not questioned that order and it had attained finality. Holding that the appellant's acts were pursuant to his status as the exonerated employer's employee and that the same set of evidence could not sustain a penalty against him, the Court allowed the appeal in terms of prayer clauses 'a' and 'b' and disposed of the pending applications.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CUSAA 8/2024, CM APPL. 6592/2024 & CM APPL. 6594/2024 NAWAL KISHORE SINGH .....Appellant Through: Ms. Reena Rawat, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) .....Respondent Through: Mr. R. Ramachandran, SSC

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 18.03.2026

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Vide final order dated 10^th August, 2018, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ CESTAT ’) has allowed the Customs Appeal No.C/50474/2018 titled Bhupinder Singh v. C C-New Delhi ICD TKD Export .

¶11

The said appeal was against the order, whereby penalty was imposed on Bhupinder Singh , a Custom House Agent in exercise of powers under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 to the tune of Rs. 3 crores. The CESTAT while dealing with the case of Bhupinder Singh has held that there were phone calls in between Deepak Kumar Rishi and Nawal Kishore Singh, i.e., present appellant, which were for a period from 29^th September, 2011 till 30^th October, 2011. In the wake of the export being of 27^th October 2011, the CESTAT further held that even if the said appellant

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:07:37

¶14

therein, namely, Bhupinder Singh was having knowledge of the import of the impugned goods, that by itself, he being a Custom House Agent and whose licence was suspended, cannot be held liable for payment of penalty. The CESTAT further held that there is no evidence against the said appellant to justify the imposing of penalty under the said provision and as such, allowed appeal.

¶15

As regard the present appellant is concerned, the order speaks of the appellant being admittedly an employee of said Bhupinder Singh who was exonerated.

¶16

In so far as the material available against the appellant, as discussed in the order impugned, the CESTAT held that the benefit granted to Bhupinder Singh, the employer of the present appellant cannot be treated at par with that of the present appellant. The fact remains that the CESTAT has not discussed any evidence in the matter as to why the appellant is being implicated though he was admittedly styled as an employee of Bhupinder Singh in relation to whom the order of saddling penalty was already set aside.

¶17

Though the CESTAT has recorded a finding that the appellant was an employee of the Bhupinder Singh who was exonerated of the liability, the only material to connect the appellant was that he has acted in connivance with Deepak Rishi and Bhupinder Singh. Based on very same set of evidence, Bhupinder Singh was exonerated and we failed to understand what prompted the CESTAT to proceed against the appellant thereby maintaining the penalty.

¶18

When confronted, the counsel for the respondent is unable to justify the order impugned based on the material available on record.

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:07:37

¶21

In the capacity of an employee even if the appellant has acted in the matter of assisting the export, the same act was pursuant to his status as that of employee of Bhupinder Singh and once the employer Bhupinder Singh has been exonerated, we see no reason to maintain the order against the appellant.

¶22

As far as the order passed in favour of Bhupinder Singh exonerating him from the payment of penalty is concerned, the respondent has not questioned the same till this date and as the said order has attained finality, there is no impediment in the claim of appellant claiming similar relief.

¶23

That being so, the present appeal stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ and ‘b’.

¶24

Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶26

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶27

MARCH 18, 2026 /pr/ok

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:07:37

Nawal Kishore Singh v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawal Kishore Singh v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs Airport and General Vs M S Entire Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Narang Machinery Store & Anr.

The Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs M S Celkon Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Hira Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs Preventive

Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S Dsv Coload Clearance Pvt. Ltd.

Asahi India Glass Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sisecam Flat Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gani Mohammed Sherani Vs Commissioner of Customs

M/S K.N Enterprises Vs the Principal Commissioner, Delhi G.S.T & Ors.

M/S Quality Nursing Services Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms Vv Footwears Vs Commissioner of Cgst Delhi West & Anr.

M/S Anr. Fabtax Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Satya Prakash Goel

M/S Ca International Vs Assistant Commissioner,Palam Division,Cgst Delhi, South