Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Prince4Line Overseas Opc Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi ... on 6 October, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No. 51714 of 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 85/ZR/Policy/2021 dated 03.09.2021 passed by
the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi)
Prince4line Overseas (OPC) Pvt Ltd ...Appellant
H.no. C-16/1 MHP-1884, Ground Floor
Mahipalpur, Near Maharaja Cable
New Delhi- 110037
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ...Respondent
General), New Delhi New Customs House Near IGI Airport, New Delhi APPEARANCE:
Shri T. Chakrapani, Consultant, Shri Anil Kumar and Ms. Gayatri, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Nikhil Mohan Goyal, Authorized Representative of the Department CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: October 06, 2025 FINAL ORDER NO. 51567/2025 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA The order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi1 revoking the courier registration of M/s Prince4line Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd.2 has been assailed. The order also forfeits the security amount and imposes a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon the appellant.
2. The show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 was issued to the appellant under the Courier Import and Export (Electronic Declaration 1 the Commissioner 2 the appellant 2 C/51714/2022 and Processing) Regulations, 20103. The show cause notice notes that that earlier a show cause notice dated 17.03.2021 was issued to appellant under the provisions of the Customs Act, 19624 and this show cause notice was sent by the Deputy Commissioner. The show cause notice mentions that based on inputs, officers visited the New Courier Terminal, New Delhi during the night shift on 16.09.2020 and it was noticed that export consignments covered under Master Airway Bill No. 157-2882-8656 were being exported through the appellant courier and even Let Export Orders had been given for the consignments which were lying at bonded/cargo area to be boarded on a flight. The goods were recalled and were examined before the authorised representatives of the appellant. Detailed examination was also carried out on 18.09.2020 in the presence of two independent Panchas, the authorised representatives of the appellant and the representative of the custodian.
3. The details of the House Airway Bills mentioned in the export manifest are as follows:
S.no. HAWB No. Name of the Name of the
Exporter (consignor) consignee
1. 635619577 Mandeep Goma, Goma Amandeep Goma,
Niwas Chakkar, Shimla, 273 Old Brompton
HP, India Road, Kensington
London, SW5 9JA,
United Kingdom
2. 635618514 Kanta soni, 57 Ganpati Raman Sangha, 33
Nagar, Near Regional Cloisterham Road,
College, Ajmer, Kent ME12BW,
Rajasthan- 305001 United Kingdom
3 the 2010 Regulations
4 the Customs Act
3 C/51714/2022
4. The goods found during the examination vis-à-vis goods declared in the export documents are as follows:
HAWB No. Goods declared as per Goods found during Export Manifest examination 635619577 Pouches, cloth bag, 3400 strips, each containing jacket (having total value 10 capsules; Description on USD 285 or 20,634 INR)* strip - "Sildenafil Citrate Tablets L.P. 100 mg; Begma 100". However, details of manufacturer not mentioned (Total 34000 tablets) 635619514 Dress, Garments (having 3302 strips, each containing total value GBP 295 or 10 capsules; Description on 28,305.25 INR)* strip - "Sildenafil Citrate Tablets LP. 100 mg; Begma 100". However, details of manufacturer not mentioned (Total 33020 tablets)
5. The show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 mentions the following allegations against the appellant :
"15. Therefore, it appears that the courier M/s Price4line Overseas (OPC) Private Limited has failed to comply with various obligations as stipulated in the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and/or Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations (CIER), 2010. Few of the violations are as below-
a) Regulation 12(1)(i) of the CIER, 2010 which obliges the authorized courier to obtain an authorization from each of the consignees or consignors of such export goods which the courier proposes to export. In the instant case the authorizations have not been obtained and it appears that the KYCs have been misused.
b) Regulation 12(1)(iii) of the CIER, 2010 which obliges the authorized courier advise his consignor or consignee to comply with the provisions of the Act.
c) Regulation 12(1)(iv) of CIER, 2010 which obliges the authorized courier to verify the antecedent, correctness of identity of his client and the functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. In the instant case, the notice failed to verify the identity and address of all the exporters. Some of the exporters have not been found at the declared address and the few 4 C/51714/2022 others have denied having made any export through the authorized courier.
d) Regulation 12(1)(v) of CIER, 2010 which obliges the authorized courier to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer. The noticee failed to ascertain whether the exporters have actually attempted to export any consignment or not. The documents submitted by the authorized courier appear to be bogus and misleading as per the above discussions. It appears that the courier never ascertained the correctness and completeness of any information submitted to the Customs department in the instant case. Moreover, they never exercised any due diligence in submitting the description of items contained in the export consignments covered under AWB Nos. 635619577 and 635619514.
e) Regulation 12(1)(vi)&(vii) of CIER, 2010 in as much as the authorized courier never revealed the actual exporter of the seized goods i.e. the sildenafil citrate tablets and tried to mislead the investigation by producing documents in respect of M/s Alpha Pharmaceuticals which appear to be bogus. Also, the authorized courier never brought to the fore the complete chain of documents showing the export made by the purported exporters Ms Kanta Soni and Sh. Mandeep Goma.
f) Regulation 12(1)(x) of CIER, 2010 which obliges the authorized courier to abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations, notifications and orders issued thereunder. Similar violations on the part of the authorized courier appear to be under the Regulation 13 of the CIER, 1998. Regulation 13 (j) of the CIER, 1998 stipulates that -
(j) not sub-contract or outsource functions permitted or required to be carried out by him in terms of these regulations to any other person, without the written permission of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. The authorized courier in the instant case appears to have violated the Regulation 13(j) of the CIER, 1998."
6. The appellant did not submit any reply to the show cause notice. This fact has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report dated 18.06.2021. In fact, the Inquiry Officer has in paragraph 26 also recorded that when the personal hearing was held on 5 C/51714/2022 24.05.2021, Madhup Kumar, Supervisor of the appellant appeared and submitted a copy of the authorization letter dated 24.05.2021 issued in his favour. It also records that during the course of personal hearing, Madhup Kumar stated that the appellant had not submitted any written reply to the show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 and also stated that the appellant accepts all the allegations made in the show cause notice and had nothing to add in the matter. It is after recording these facts that the Inquiry Officer examined the allegations against the appellant at length, and recorded the following findings:
"31. From the foregoing, it is clear that the goods were mis-declared in terms of description, quantity and value in violation of Customs Act, 1962 as both the export consignments covered under Air Way Bills No. 635619577 & 635619514 were found to contain similar goods ie. "Sildenafil Citrate Tablets L.P. 100 mg: Begma 100" and were attempted to be exported without details of the drugs printed on them by violating Rule 94 & 96 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rule, 1945. The export was being attempted without obtaining NOC from Assistant Drugs Controller.
31.1 The shipments/consignments having been exchanged, at the time of dispatch from the courier appeared to be an afterthought, only to deviate the attention. This is more apparent when none of the exporters agreed to the claim of the courier M/s Prince4line Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd, that any kind of export was made by them as per the manifest filed by the authorized courier M/s Prince4line Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. Some other exporter under the same MAWB No. 157- 2882-8656 also categorically denied of booking/export any items though M/s Prince4line Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. before or after 17.09.2020. Therefore, it is quite evident that the authorized courier has misused the KYC documents of different peoples on multiple occasions.
31.2 When asked about the booking of the consignments which were actually meant to be exported by the respective exporters as per the authorized courier, their representative has stated that the actual consignments were booked through co loaders named M/s Urban logistics and M/s Max Couriers. However, no documentary evidences for the same could be submitted by the Noticee. Thus, booking of the consignments by individual exporters/consignors could not be established by the authorized courier M/s Prince4line Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, it is clear that the consignments having 6 C/51714/2022 been interchanged during the time of dispatch from the courier is an afterthought only to mislead the investigation."
7. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer recorded that the appellant had failed to comply with the various obligations stipulated in the 2010 Regulations and drew the following conclusion:
"34. In view of the above, it is concluded that the Noticee M/s Prince4line Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. has contravened the provisions of Regulation 12(1)(1), 12(1)(iii), 12(1)(iv), 12(1)(v), 12(1)(vi), 12(1)(vii) & 12(1)(x) of CIER, 2010 and Regulation 13(j) of CIER, 1998 and is liable for action in terms of Regulation 13(1) of CIER, 2010 including revocation of their Courier Registration and forfeiture of the security submitted at the time of issue of their Registration and imposition of penalty under the provisions of Regulation 14 of CIER, 2010."
8. The Commissioner accepted the report and ordered for revocation of the Courier Registration of the appellant. The Commissioner also forfeited the security amount and imposed a penalty.
9. It is this order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner that has been challenged in this appeal.
10. Shri T. Chakrapani, learned consultant appearing for the appellant, assisted by Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel made the following submissions:
i) The relied upon documents contained at Annexure A of the show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 were not provided to the appellant and, therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated;
ii) The report dated 18.06.2021 submitted by the Inquiry Officer wrongly records that Madhup Kumar had accepted all the allegations made in the show cause notice and had nothing more to say whereas, he had only appeared on 24.05.2021 to seek an adjournment;
iii) After the receipt of the Inquiry Report, the appellant submitted a letter 05.07.2021 mentioning therein that 7 C/51714/2022 Madhup Kumar had made request for fixing a fresh date of hearing but "he was asked to sign a letter written by the Inquiry Officer himself making him admitting all the charges in the show cause notice";
iv) It is only on 16.08.2021 that the relied upon documents were provided to the appellant but they were not legible. Thus, the proper course for the Commissioner was to have provided the copies of the relied upon documents, but that was not done and the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 was passed;
v) Even on merits, the appellant had submitted that the goods were meant for local trade but due to mix-up during the COVID period, the local goods were sent for exports and, therefore, the issue of Know Your Customer (KYC) documents does not arise at all; and
vi) The show cause notice had called upon the appellant to appear before the Inquiry Officer and submit the reply as to why he should not be held responsible for the contraventions mentioned therein within 60 days from the receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer. Thus, the show cause notice required the appellant to submit a reply even before the Inquiry was initiated and concluded.
11. Shri Nikhil Mohan Goyal, learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and made the following submissions:
i) It is incorrect on the part of the appellant to allege that the relied upon documents were not supplied with the show cause notice. The appellant had not raised such a grievance before the Inquiry Officer and it is only after the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report that the appellant for the first time raised an issue about non-
supply of the relied upon documents enclosed with the show cause notice;
ii) It is incorrect on the part of the appellant to allege that Madhup Kumar had not made any statement on 24.05.2021 that the appellant accepts all the 8 C/51714/2022 allegations made in the show cause notice because if the contention of the appellant that Madhup Kumar was asked to sign something written by the Inquiry Officer is correct, then such a protest should have been lodged by the appellant or Madhup Kumar before the Inquiry Officer;
iii) The Inquiry Report is based on facts and the appellant has failed to produce any authorization as contemplated in regulation 12(1) of the 2010 Regulations;
iv) The appellant had submitted the House Airway Bill for export and the subsequent invoices produced by the appellant to show that the goods were actually meant for domestic port at Bombay is incorrect as the peron who is said to have issued the invoices has categorically stated that he did not issue such invoices; and
v) The Commissioner was, therefore, justified in not only revoking the courier registration but was also justified in forfeiting the security and imposing penalty upon the appellant.
12. The submissions advanced by the learned consultant for the appellant and learned authorised representative of the department have been considered.
13. The first issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the relied upon documents mentioned at Annexure A to the show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 were supplied to the appellant.
14. To examine this contention, it would have to be seen whether after the receipt of the show cause notice the appellant had made any grievance about non-receipt of the relied upon documents. There is nothing on the record which may indicate that after the receipt of the show cause notice upto the date of the personal hearing on 24.05.2021 any letter had been sent by the appellant raising this grievance. In fact, the Inquiry Report mentions that when Madhup 9 C/51714/2022 Kumar, Supervisor of the appellant with due authorization, appeared before the Inquiry Officer he admitted that the appellant had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice and that the appellant accepted all the allegations made in the show cause notice and had nothing further to state.
15. This finding has been controverted by the learned consultant appearing for the appellant and in this connection, communication dated 05.07.2021 has been extensively referred to. This communication was sent by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in connection with the Inquiry Report. What has been stated in the letter is that Madhup Kumar was sent on 24.05.2021 only to make a request for fixing a fresh date of hearing but "he was asked to sign a letter written by the Inquiry Officer himself making him admitting all the charges in the show cause notice."
16. Learned authorised representative appearing for the department has rightly pointed out that if this were so, then Madhup Kumar or the appellant would have on 24.05.2021 or immediately thereafter written a letter either to the Inquiry Officer or to the Commissioner pointing out that Madhup Kumar had been asked to sign a letter written by the Inquiry Officer but this was not done. It clearly appears that the appellant waited for the Inquiry Report to be submitted and once this report was against the appellant, such allegations have been made. A mere denial of this fact mentioned in the Inquiry Report at a later stage after submission of the Inquiry Report does not inspire confidence. If what has been stated is true, the appellant would have immediately responded. Madhup Kumar is not a class four employee of 10 C/51714/2022 the appellant but is either a Supervisor or an Assistant Manager as has been described at various places. In fact, in the statement during investigation Madhup Kumar had appeared on many occasions and had stated he was the Assistant Manager and was looking after the payment receipts and Customs clearances. It is difficult to believe that a person at the level of an Assistant Manager/Supervisor, would not respond immediately if made to sign a statement, if this fact was not correct.
17. Learned consultant for the appellant also submitted that it is only pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal that copies of the relied upon documents were submitted and so it should be presumed that copies were not supplied earlier.
18. It is not possible to accept this submission. Merely because documents have been supplied to the appellant pursuant to the order of the Tribunal does not mean that these documents were not earlier supplied to the appellant. As noticed above, it was for the appellant to have raised grievance about non-supply of the relied upon documents upon receipt of the show cause notice and the appellant cannot be permitted to take up such a stand after the Inquiry Report was submitted.
19. The appellant did not file any reply to the show cause notice and when Madhup Kumar appeared for personal hearing on 24.05.2021, he accepted the allegations made in the show cause notice.
20. A perusal of the Inquiry Report, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced above, clearly shows that the appellant did not have any authorisation from the person who was sending the goods by courier. Regulation 12(1) of the 2010 Regulations states that 11 C/51714/2022 Authorised Courier shall obtain an authorization from the consignor of goods which the Courier proposes to export. Even otherwise, the alleged exporter has denied giving the KYC documents to the appellant.
21. The attempt made by the appellant to suggest that the goods were not actually being exported out of country but were meant for domestic destination cannot also be accepted for the reason that person who is said to have issued has denied having issued the invoice.
22. The appellant made various attempts to mis-lead the department. Sending goods out of the country by the appellant as a courier without an authorization of the consignor is a serious office and no leniency can be shown.
23. Learned consultant for the appellant also submitted that the show cause notice requires the appellant to submit a reply after the submission of Inquiry Report cannot also be accepted. Paragraph 15 of the show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 clearly states that it appeared that the appellant had failed to comply with various obligations contemplated under the 2010 Regulations and this is what has also been stated in the paragraph 17. The appellant was clearly asked to submit a reply and appear before the Inquiry Officer. It is only after the Inquiry Officer submits a report that the appellant can be expected to file a reply to the show cause notice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, merely asking the appellant to submit a reply to the report of Inquiry Officer, will not vitiate the show cause notice or the order.
12 C/51714/2022
24. Thus, none of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant have any force.
25. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Diksha