CESTAT Kolkata- No Evidence of Involvement in Alleged Fraudulent Export and Overvaluation

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 24.04.2026

CESTAT Kolkata- No Evidence of Involvement in Alleged Fraudulent Export and Overvaluation

​​ ​​   ​​ ​ ​​​  ​ ​

In a significant legal development, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, delivered its final order on two appeals filed by Sri Kousik Nundy, proprietor of M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders. The case revolved around allegations of fraudulent export and overvaluation, with the authorities imposing penalties under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the proceedings, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal’s reasoning for exonerating the appellant.

Background of the Case

The appeals stemmed from two show cause notices issued to the appellant, charging him with alleged fraudulent export activities carried out by M/s. Asian Enterprises and M/s. Sai Trading. The authorities claimed that these firms, in connivance with M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders, cleared highly overvalued export consignments to fraudulently avail IGST refunds. The appellant was accused of providing contacts and documents related to these exports to M/s. Advent Shipping Agency, the authorized Customs Broker.

Key Allegations and Charges

• Fraudulent Export and Overvaluation: The authorities alleged that the appellant’s firm facilitated the export of overvalued goods, aiming to claim higher IGST refunds.
• Involvement of Employees: It was claimed that employees of M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders were actively involved in the facilitation process.
• Penalties Imposed: Penalties under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act were imposed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Appellant’s Defense

The appellant, represented by counsel, strongly contested the charges:

• No Involvement as Customs Broker: The appellant asserted that he was not the Customs Broker for the impugned exports and had no nexus with the consignment.
• Employee Status Disputed: The appellant refuted claims that the individuals named by the authorities were employees of his firm at the relevant time.
• Lack of Evidence: He argued that there was no evidence connecting him or his firm to the alleged fraudulent activities.

Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

The Tribunal meticulously examined the facts and arguments:

• No Direct Evidence: The Tribunal found no direct evidence linking the appellant to the fraudulent exports or overvaluation.
• Role of Exporter and Customs Broker: The misdeclaration of value was attributed to the exporter and the Customs Broker (M/s. Advent Shipping Agency), not the appellant.
• Employee Connection Unsubstantiated: The claim that certain individuals were employees of the appellant at the material time was not supported by evidence.
• Legal Distinction: The Tribunal noted the legal distinction between M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders (proprietary concern) and M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that no link was established between the two entities.
• Requirement of Concrete Proof: The Tribunal stressed that penal liabilities require concrete proof of nexus and malicious intent, which was absent in this case.

Extracts from the Tribunal’s Order

The Tribunal highlighted key findings from the lower authority’s orders:

“Gross mis-declaration in terms of valuation has been done by the exporter, M/s. Asian Enterprises with the connivance of Customs Broker, M/s. Advent Shipping Agency for the purpose of availing IGST refund fraudulently, thus causing loss to exchequer. … rendering the Exporter and Customs Broker liable for penal action under section 114(iii) & 114AA of the Act.”

Regarding the appellant:

“Mere providing of contact/reference and documents related to certain exports to a third person, cannot itself be considered as an offending cause, liable for penal action under law. … Without such knowledge being ascribed to on part of the appellant, it would be utterly improper to subject them to penal consequences under law.”

Final Decision

The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant, stating:

“In view of the discussions above, we set aside the order of the lower authority qua the imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) and under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant in each of the two cases and allow the two appeals filed.”

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of concrete evidence and clear legal nexus in imposing penal liabilities under customs law. The CESTAT Kolkata’s decision reaffirms that mere association or provision of documents, without proven malicious intent or direct involvement, cannot be grounds for penal action. The exoneration of M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation and substantiation before attributing liability.

Source: CESTAT Kolkata

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com