The Sindh High Court reaffirmed an important principle concerning the statutory responsibility of Customs Clearing Agents. The Department sought to hold a clearing agent responsible in a matter involving allegedly false import invoices and incorrect declarations filed through the WeBOC system. However, the show-cause notice did not specifically establish what role the clearing agent had played in the alleged manipulation.
The Court applied its earlier decision in SCRA No. 47 of 2022, observing that a customs agent normally files declarations on the basis of documents and information supplied by the importer. A clearing agent cannot simply be presumed to be part of an importer’s arrangement or wrongdoing. For a penalty to survive, there must be clear findings supported by legally acceptable evidence showing active and conscious involvement, collusion or connivance. The Court also emphasized that a penalty cannot be sustained for violation of a provision, such as Rule 101, unless the person has first been properly confronted with that allegation through a show-cause notice.
The Department’s reference was therefore disposed of against it by applying the earlier ruling. The practical takeaway for customs proceedings is significant: the importer’s default does not automatically become the clearing agent’s default. Where penalties are proposed against agents, the Department must identify their specific conduct, invoke the relevant legal provision and establish their involvement through evidence rather than assumption.