Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bruce Logistics Private Limited vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 10980/2025
@ SLP (C) No. 6451 of 2025
BRUCE LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises from an order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Customs Appeal No. 17 of 2023.
4. Though appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) was dismissed, but certain observations have crept in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the High Court which run contrary to CESTAT’s observations, therefore, on 28.02.2025, a limited notice was issued by this Court. For reference, the Order dated 28.02.2025 is extracted below:
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.08.25 15:36:47 IST Reason: 1Application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned order is allowed.
Delay condoned.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the findings recorded by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in its judgment dated 10th December, 2019 and in particular, in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12. He submits that what is recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment is contrary to what was held by the CESTAT.
Issue notice confined to the aforesaid aspect, returnable on 28.03.2025.”
5. In paragraph 6 of the Order, the High Court has observed as under:
“In the order-in-original respondent had given a factual finding against appellant holding that appellant was responsible to advise the Importer to follow rules and regulations governing clearance of the imported goods and any non-compliance should have been brought to the notice of the Customs Authorities. There is also a factual finding that appellant had suggested to the Importer to mis-declare the imported goods in order to aid and abet the Importer in circumventing the requirement under both Foreign Trade Policy and the Arms Act, 1959 read with the Arms Rules, 2016 as amended. There is a factual finding that appellant was having knowledge of such mis- declaration and accordingly mis-classification under CTH 9503 being “Black Firing Guns” and required DGFT license under the import policy and license under the Arms Act, 1959 read with Arms Rules, 2016. This factual finding, in our view, has been accepted by the Tribunal in the portion quoted above.” (Emphasis Supplied) 2
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the observation made by the High Court that the factual finding returned in the Order-in-original in respect of mis-
declaration was accepted by the CESTAT is not correct, as would be clear from paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12 of the order of CESTAT.
7. The observations of CESTAT in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12 are extracted below:
“4.9 From the above it is quite evident that sole evidence relied in the impugned order, against the appellant is the statement dated 19.06.2017 of Shri Rajesh Kumar Goswami, wherein he has stated that their custom Broker had suggested to declare the goods as “Metal Toy Guns”. Apart from the above in the impugned order we do not find anything else relied against the appellants. As have been stated in para 4.5, the said statement was relied upon by the Commissioner, has been retracted by Shri Rajesh Kumar Goswami before ACMM, stating that the statement was not voluntary and has been taken by the Customer Officer under duress and by giving false promise and false information. In the impugned order reliance has been placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Jasjeet Singh Marwah (2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del), stating that statement made before the Customs Officers under Section 108 is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and can form sole basis for conviction. There can be no dispute about the same, however, the statement has to examined for it being voluntary. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K I Pavunny (1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC) 3
25. It would thus be seen that there is no prohibition under the Evidence Act to rely upon the retracted confession to prove the prosecution case or to make the same basis for conviction of the accused. The practice and prudence require that the Court could examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether there are any other facts and circumstances to corroborate the retracted confession. It is not necessary that there should be corroboration from independent evidence adduced by the prosecution to corroborate each detail contained in the confessional statement. The Court is required to examine whether the confessional statement is voluntary; in other words, whether it was not obtained by threat, duress or promise. If the Court is satisfied from the evidence that it was voluntary, then it is required to examine whether the statement is true. If the Court on examination of the evidence finds that the retracted confession is true, that part of the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base conviction. However, the prudence and practice require that Court would seek assurance getting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
We do not find even a whisper in the entire order, about the statement relied upon holding it to be true and voluntary. In our view the impugned order needs to be set aside on this ground itself. In view of specific retraction made by Shri Rajesh Kumar Goswami before the ACMM, before relying on his statement in view of the decision of the Apex Court referred above we are of the view that Commissioner or Enquiry Officer should have first tested the said statements as per the test laid down by the Apex Court and then relied upon the same.
44.10 From the facts as stated in foregoing paras it is also evident that issue in the present case can more appropriately be described as that of mis classification and not mis declaration as alleged in the proceedings initiated against the appellants. There is no denial of the fact that the goods were physically examined by the Customs Officers and samples too were drawn from the consignment, sent to appropriate lab for testing by the Customs Officers. It was only after satisfying themselves and discussions at all levels upto Commissioner the goods were held classifiable under Heading 9503. When the Custom Officers themselves have after physically examining the goods concluded that the goods were classifiable under Heading 9503, can the Custom Broker be accused of mis-declaring the goods and their classification. When Custom Officers who are expert in the matter of classification of goods after physically examining\ it and considering the issue for substantial time then can an Custom Broker be accused of failing to determine the correct classification on the basis of description given by the importer and in the import documents.
4.11 Admittedly, certificate as required in terms of ITC (HS) Import Policy, Condition No. 2, for the import of goods under CTH 9503 was not produced by the Importer/Custom Broker, but what stopped/prevented Custom Officers from insisting on the same before allowing the clearance. Can this failure of the Custom Officers be also the reason for accusing the Custom Broker of his failure to comply with the policy requirements?
4.12 Appellant as per the Article of Charges have been accused of failure in complying with Regulation 11(d) and 11(e) of the Custom Broker Regulations 2013. The said Regulations are reproduced below:
(d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;5
(e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage;
In the impugned order we do not find any discussion to show how the Appellants have failed to comply with the requirements of Regulations 11(d) and 11(e). He had advised the client as per his understanding of the law and procedure, and had exercised due diligence accordingly. In our view the only additional advise that he could have rendered in respect of the consignments imported and cleared under CTH 9503 could have been for complying with the requirements of ITC (HS)Import Policy Condition No. 2 for import of goods under that heading. In case the said certificate was produced or insisted upon before clearance of the goods the entire case of mis-declaration / mis-classification could have been averted. In our view revocation of licence for that would be too harsh a punishment for the same when Customs Officers also have not insisted for the same would have been adequate taking into account the fact that goods sought to be cleared, were “blank guns” which could have been modified into lethal weapons jeopardizing the National Security and the security of individuals.” (Emphasis Supplied)
8. From the above extracts, in view of the CESTAT, it was not a case of mis-declaration but a case of mis-classification and,therefore, the finding to the extent that the appellant had advised the importer to mis-declare the imported goods is not correct.
9. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to hold that the observation in paragraph 6 of the order of the High Court that the CESTAT upheld the finding in the Order-in-original that the appellant had advised the importer to mis-declare the imported goods is incorrect.
610. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………………J [MANOJ MISRA] ………………………………………………………………………………J [UJJAL BHUYAN] New Delhi August 21, 2025 7 ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.13 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10980/2025 @ SLP (C) No. 6451 of 2025 BRUCE LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 21-08-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR For Respondent(s) :
Mr. N.venkataraman, A.S.G. V.c.bharathi, Adv.
Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
Kartikey Asthana, Adv. Sarthak Karol, Adv.
Prerna Dhal, Adv.
Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. N. Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. V C Bharathi, Adv.
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(CHETAN ARORA) (SAPNA BANSAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 8