Shri Bikash Bose v. Union of India & Ors
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Feb 2026
- Bench
- NARAYAN RAI
Outcome
Set aside
For all the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned is set aside and the matter
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- AA of the Customs Act, 1962
- Customs Act, 1962 ss. 111, 112(a), 112(b)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 107
Judgment
g) On June 24, 2024 the importer for the first time produced an invoice different than the one that was handed over to the petitioner. While the said invoice bore the same invoice number as that of the petitioner, it differed in its content; since two items i.e., detergent powder and khas khas spice (poppy seed) were mentioned therein. h) The importer stated that the supplier had sent wrong goods and had issued the new invoice as the goods had already landed at Kolkata and that he had decided to clear the items by amending importer license. i) Thereafter, a notice dated December 12, 2024, was issued to the petitioner by the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit thereby calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the said Act of 1962 should not be imposed upon the petitioner. The show cause notice charged the petitioner with abatement in smuggling and having knowledge of mis-declared consignment. The notice also asserted that the petitioner had intentionally submitted false documents for the purpose of clearance of the import container from the shipping agent. j) The petitioner replied to the show cause notice initially on January 10,
2025. The same was followed by another reply on May 06, 2025. A third reply was also furnished on June 06, 2025. k) Ultimately, on July 01, 2025, the order in original was passed whereby penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the said Act of 1962 were imposed upon the petitioner. l) Feeling aggrieved by the said order in original the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. The petitioner has questioned the imposition of penalties on him interalia on the ground of arbitrariness, violation of principles of natural justice and also alleging that the petitioner had been saddled with much heftier penalty than the importer. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
A brief summary of the submissions made by Ms. Chowdhary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (both orally as well as in the written notes) is as follows:- a) The order impugned is wholly unreasoned. The order in original had been copiously copied from the notice to show cause. b) There is no discussion about the matter in the order impugned. c) The order in original has been passed without application of mind to the petitioner’s reply along with the supporting documents, the submissions made and the judgments cited by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the submission made by the petitioner has also not been considered. d) Penalty had been imposed upon the petitioner mechanically and arbitrarily in violation of the provisions of Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the said Act of 1962. In support of the proposition that an order without reason and without application of mind is a nullity, the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another vs.
Masood Ahmed Khan & Others.1 and State Project Director, U.P. Education For All Project Board & Others vs. Saroj Maurya & Others2. e) No penalty could have been imposed under Section 112(a) of the said Act of 1962 without any clear finding of knowledge, intention, mens rea or connivance. In support of such contention the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shuvam Chatterjee vs. Union of India & Another3. f) A copy of a circular bearing no. 20/2024-Cus. (Instruction) dated September 03, 2024 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi was cited to contend that penalty cannot be imposed or levied unless the element of abetment of the Customs Broker is established by the investigating authority. g) Since the petitioner had no knowledge of the goods and the goods had already been sealed at a place beyond reach of the petitioner and there was no finding to the contrary, therefore, no penalty could have been imposed under Section 112(b) of the said Act of 1962. Relying on a judgment of the South Zonal Bench of Bangalore in the case of Access World Wide Cargo vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore4, it was submitted that penalty under Section 114AA of the said Act of 1962 is only meant to be imposed on a fraudulent exporter.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For all the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned is set aside and the matter
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; AA of the Customs Act, 1962; Customs Act, 1962 — ss. 111, 112(a), 112(b); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 107.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 04 Feb 2026. The bench was NARAYAN RAI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.