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:
1
Application 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.
4
4.10 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.
6
10. 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 BHUYANFor 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