CHA cannot be held not responsible for verifying the contents of his clients: CESTAT

CHA cannot be held not responsible for verifying the contents of his clients CHA cannot be held not responsible for verifying the contents of his clients

CHA cannot be held not responsible for verifying the contents of his clients: CESTAT
In the matter of Shyam Singh vs Commissioner, Customs, The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has held that Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for verifying the contents of his clients.
CESTAT drew support from the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Baraskar Brothers vs Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai reported as [2013 (294) ELT 415 (Tri-Mumbai)].
The Tribunal further added that the appellant has acted on the instruction of the importer. The said fact has not been disowned by the importer himself. Hence mistakes cannot be fastened upon the CHA.
Tribunal said " I draw my support from the decision of Transocean Discoverer 534 LLC vs. Commr. of Cus., Visakhapatnam-II reported as [2009 (236) E.L.T. 56 (Tri. - Bang.)] and the decision of Tribunal Mumbai in the case of P.D. Manjrekar vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported as [2007 (213) E.L.T. 405 (Tri. - Mumbai)] wherein it was held that once the Bill of Entry filed were given to CHA by their clients and the importer owns up to their mistake, they have also discharged the duty liability with interest. CHA cannot be considered instrumental in any mis-declaration."
About Author

CA Deepak Gupta
Co Founder
CA Deepak Gupta,is Co-founder of Studycafe. He is Microsoft Office Specialist and Corporate Trainer of AI Tools, Microsoft Excel.
He is Finance Influencer having more than 250K followers on Social Media. CA Deepak Gupta, is Having more than 14 plus years of experience, and he has Worked with best brands Like, Hero, Wipro, Ericsson before Starting Studycafe. He has Trained more than 20000 Persons in Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, Power BI, Google Sheet, Google Forms and Other Tools.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
3423My Recent Articles
- UltraTech Cement slapped with Rs. 808.78 Cr Income Tax Demand
- GST: High Court upheld constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), asks government to address ITC issues of genuine purchasers
- Old vs New Tax Regime for Tax Year 2026-27
- High court criticizes Income Tax Department for not releasing ITR Utilities despite 11 years of directions
- Fino Payments Bank CEO Rishi Gupta Gets Bail in GST Case, Bank Clarifies No Direct Link
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








