Bharath Raj Kumar

In response to serious and false allegations made by @PrawinGaneshan regarding Bill of Entry No. 3837029 dated 12.08.2025, we categorically place the following facts on record. This importer has an established pattern of making unsubstantiated allegations of corruption and bribery on this platform, only to delete such posts once factual rebuttals are provided by this department. The documented facts are as follows: During examination, goods declared under CTH 90191010 were found to be misclassified and correctly classifiable under CTH 90191020. The importer accepted this reclassification on 01.09.2025, confirming the misclassification. Physical examination revealed eight boxes containing USB charging cables that were completely undeclared in the Bill of Entry, commercial invoice, and packing list - a clear violation of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods contain built-in rechargeable batteries, making EPR registration from Central Pollution Control Board mandatory under Rule 13 of Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022. Despite repeated queries on 29.08.2025, during personal hearing on 08.09.2025, and again on 29.09.2025, no EPR certificate was provided. Instead, the importer submitted wrong documentation (E-waste undertaking) and made legally untenable claims of MSME exemption, finished product exemption, and low battery capacity exemption - none of which exist under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022. The allegations of harassment and non-cooperation are demonstrably false. The importer was granted personal hearing on 08.09.2025 in full accordance with principles of natural justice. Bonding permission under Section 49 of Customs Act was granted on 11.09.2025 specifically to help the importer avoid demurrage charges during adjudication. Postponement was accommodated on 19.09.2025 when the importer requested additional time. At no stage was any payment or bribe demanded - all queries pertained strictly to mandatory statutory compliance under Battery Waste Management Rules 2022, BIS Act 2016, Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011, and Customs Act 1962. Furthermore, during pendency of adjudication proceedings on this Bill of Entry, the same importer filed identical goods through a related entity (wife's company) on 12.09.2025 with the same compliance gaps, demonstrating systematic evasion rather than inadvertent error. During an official meeting on 30.09.2025, the importer attempted to intimidate senior officers through threats of media exposure and self-harm when informed that due process must be followed. This conduct has been formally documented and reported. The importer's social media posts reveal a calculated pattern: allegations of corruption when facing legitimate scrutiny, followed deletion of his thread when facts of violation by importer are placed on record. This selective narrative is a deliberate tactic to pressure officials into releasing cargo without following due process. We categorically state that every action taken was legally mandated, procedurally proper, and based on documented violations discovered during examination. Chennai Customs will not be deterred by false allegations from performing its statutory duties. We remain committed to lawful, transparent, and professional conduct while enforcing regulations designed to protect public health, consumer safety, and environmental standards.@cbic_india