Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Speedway Cargo &Amp Courier Services vs Commissioner, Customs (Import &Amp ... on 10 May, 2022
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51027 OF 2020 - Cus. (DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 28/MK/REVOCATION/POLICY/2020 dated
25/06/2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi -
110 037.]
M/s. Speedway Cargo & Courier Services ...Appellant
Room No.2 & 3, House No.819,
Second Floor, Block K-2,
VillMahipalpur Extension,
Near Baba House,
New Delhi - 110 037.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent
(Import & General)
New Custom House,
Near I.G.I Airport,
New Delhi - 110 037
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ranjish Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Nagendra Yadav, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 03/03/2022
Date of Decision: 10/05/2022
Final Order No. 50403/2022
Per: P. ANJANI KUMAR
M/s. Speedy Cargo and Courier Service 1 have been alleged to
have violated the provisions of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic
Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 2 and the Public Notice
dated 07.05.2019 issued by Commissioner Air Cargo Complex
(Export), New Delhi, which notice was subsequently amended on
15.05.2019.
1. the appellant
2. the Courier Regulations
2
C/51027/2020
2. The appellant imported, at the I.G.I. Airport, a shipment of 80
boxes from Doha on 29.05.2019 and another shipment of 98 boxes
from Bahrain on 01.06.2019. The above said consignments were
examined by the Special Investigation & Intelligence Branch of the Air
Cargo Complex Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi. It was
found that there were discrepancies in respect of seventeen
consignments. Eight boxes were found to be consigned to States other
than the seven States (i.e. Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand) permitted by the
Public Notice and in respect of nine consignments names/addresses of
the consignees mentioned in the declarations and on the on the
invoices attached/pasted on the packages were different.
3. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Customs Act,
1962 3. The appellant by letter dated 24.7.2019 submitted that due a
technical problem in the software used for generating addresses in
their Doha and Bahrain office, the addresses were wrongly printed and
the details of the invoices were not double checked by their staff due
to carelessness. The appellant submitted cancellation receipts and KYC
documents of the consignor and consignees and requested for a lenient
view. The proceedings culminated in the issue of Order-in-original
dated 25.09.2019, by the Deputy Commissioner. The value of the
impugned goods, valued at Rs. 1,79,403/-, was enhanced under
Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act while giving an option
to redeem on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs.80,000 and
applicable duties and penalties of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-
were also imposed on the appellant under Sections 112 and 114AA of
3. the Customs Act
3
C/51027/2020
the Act. The appellant accepted the said Order dated 25.09.2019 and
paid up the levies and did not file any appeal.
4. The Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Custom
House, New Delhi, suspended the courier licence of the appellant with
immediate effect; issued a show cause notice dated 23.12.2019
seeking an explanation as to why the License should not be revoked
and appointed an Inquiry Officer to determine the grounds for
revocation of the license of the appellant. The Inquiry Officer
submitted the Inquiry Report on 20.03.2020 and concluded that the
appellant contravened the provisions of Regulations 4(2), 5(4),
12(1)(i), 12(1)(iii), 12(1)(v), 12(1)(vii) and 12(1)(x) of the Courier
Regulations. Accordingly, vide the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner
revoked the licence issued to the appellant; forfeited security amount
of Rs.10, 00,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/-.
5. Shri Rajnish Kumar Varma, learned advocate, appearing for the
appellant, submits that there is no evidence of existence of mens rea
on the part of the appellant to defraud Government Exchequer and
infractions or violations of trivial nature had occurred due to technical
glitches in the software maintained by their offices in Doha and
Bahrain due to negligence of the staff posted over there. He submits
that out of total 178 packages, there was infraction in respect of only 8
packages, in as much as the invoices pasted on the packages showed
the State of destination which is other than the seven States permitted
as per the Public Notice. In respect of nine boxes addresses of the
consignees mentioned in the Express Cargo Manifest - Import 4, are
different from the addresses mentioned on the invoices attached /
4. ECM-I
4
C/51027/2020
pasted on the packages, though addresses were within the 7 permitted
States.
6. Learned counsel submits that it is clear, from the above, that
punitive action is much harsher on the appellant qua the gravity of
offence committed inadvertently. Learned counsel submits further that
there is no evidence that the appellant was going to get any monetary
benefit by mis-declaring the goods and thereby evading the payment
of duty; moreover, it is not the case of the department that the
appellant planned to make illegal gain out of these imports; and
having regard to the facts and circumstances in totality, the
punishment inflicted upon the appellant is not proportionate to the
offence, which was of technical nature. In this connection the learned
counsel pointed out that the principles of proportionality have been
explained by the Delhi High Court in Ashiana Cargo Services vs.
Commissioner of Customs (I & G) 5. The High Court held that
punishment must be proportionate to gravity and nature of infraction
by CHA; every infraction of CHA Regulations, either under Regulation
13 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 or
elsewhere, cannot lead to revocation of licence; in line with
proportionality analysis, only grave and serious violations justify
revocation; and in other cases, suspension for adequate period of time
resulting in loss of business and income suffices, both as punishment
for infraction and as a deterrent to future violations. Learned counsel
submits that this judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court 6.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant also brought
to the notice of the Commissioner his financial, economic and family
problems/conditions after closure of his business. However, the
5. 2014 (302) E.L.T. 161 (Del.)
6. 2015 (320) E.L.T. A175 (S.C.)
5
C/51027/2020
Commissioner did not pay any heed to the submissions qua miserable
conditions of the appellant and imposed such a severe punishment
which has snatched away his livelihood forever. The appellant has
already suffered enormously. Therefore, in the conspectus of
circumstances, the impugned Order dated 25.06.2020 is bad in law
and deserves to be set aside.
8. Shri Nagendra Yadav, learned Authorised Representative,
appearing for the department submits that in view of the provisions of
Customs Act and the Courier Regulations, the appeal against
revocation of Courier License lies with Chief Commissioner and not
CESTAT; the submission of the appellant that there is no evidence of
malafide intention or mensrea for the alleged infraction or violation
and the same was due to technical problem/glitches in the software at
overseas offices of the appellant or was due to negligence of the staff
posted over there, is not sustainable. Learned Authorised
Representative submits that the appellants have been giving different
and inconsistent explanations as follows:
(a) Initially the appellant submitted that the invoices had been
pasted on wrong boxes; when their offices at Bahrain & Doha
came to know about the discrepancy, they made changes in
relevant declarations and put correct details of consignor and
consignee; the addresses of consignor and consignee
mentioned in the declarations and bills of entry were
correct;
(b) Later on, they submitted that invoices pasted on the boxes
pertained to another lot; but, could not produce details of
the bookings of the shipments on being asked; they simply
submitted that on permission from consignor/shipper, the
courier cancelled the booking and returned the goods; and
6
C/51027/2020
(c) Appellant came up with another explanation that due to
technical problem in software used in Doha & Bahrain offices,
consignee/ consignor names and addresses got changed
while taking print out of the invoices; the details of the
invoices were not double checked by their staff due to their
carelessness.
9. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the explanation
given by the appellant raise doubts about the credibility as it was
changing its version and did not submit complete and reliable
documents in support of their claim. The appellant had no explanation
for the misdeeds of their offices at the Consignor location in which they
were also accomplices.
10. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the
representative of the appellant in his statement admitted that he was
aware about the Public Notices, yet the appellant acted in utter
disregard of the Public Notice and what is striking is the fact that the
violations took place on 30.05.2019, immediately after the issuance of
Public Notice. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the
appellant failed to establish that it had exercised due diligence;
appellant's submission that there is no evidence that the appellant
was going to get any monetary benefit by mis-declaring the goods is
also not sustainable; the appellant tried to get the goods cleared duty
free in the guise of gift shipments by undervaluation; and initially it
filed Courier Bill of Entry-XII meant for gift shipments but when
undervaluation was unearthed, it filed Courier Bill of Entry-XIII meant
for dutiable goods. This act clearly shows that the appellant did so
intentionally for monetary benefit and that the serious offence
7
C/51027/2020
jeopardizing Revenue's interest took place, which cannot be dealt with
leniency.
11. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the revocation
of licence is justified and he relies on the ratio of the case KM Ganatra
& Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs 7. On the issue of need for due
diligence on the part of the appellant, learned Authorised
Representative relies on the ratio of decisions of CESTAT in
Millennium Express Cargo Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Customs, New Delhi 8, which was further affirmed by Delhi High
Court 9 and Rubal Logistics Private Limited vs. Commissioner of
Customs (General), New Delhi 10. On the appellants claim for
commensurate punishment, learned Authorised Representative relies
on the decisions rendered in Commissioner of Customs and Central
Excise vs. H.B. Cargo services 11. He further relies on the following
cases.
(i) Multi Wings Clearing & forwarding Pvt. Ltd. vs.
C.C.(General),New Delhi 12;
(ii) Skytrain Services vs. Commissioner of Customs
(Airport & General), New Delhi 13;
(iii) Sri Durga Shipping Agencies vs. Commissioner of
Customs 14;
(iv) DHL Lemuir Logistics Private Limited vs. The
Commissioner of Customs 15;
(v) Jasjeet Singh Marwaha vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Ors.16 ;
(vi) Eagle Transport Services vs. Commissioner of
Customs, Mumbai 17;
7. 2016 (332) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)
8. 2017 (346) E.L.T. 471 (Tri. - Del.)
9. 2017 (354) E.L.T. 467(Del.)
10. 2019 (368) E.L.T. 1006 (Tri. -Del.)
11. 2011 (268) E.L.T. 448 (A.P.)
12. 2019(369) E.L.T. 820 (Tri.-Del.)
13. 2019(369) E.L.T. 1739 (Tri.-Delhi)
14. 2014(299) E.L.T. 97 (Tri- Chennai)
15. Customs Appeal No. 2275 of 2010 decided on 14.03.2011
16. 2009 (239) E.L.T. 407 (Del.)
8
C/51027/2020
(vii) Commissioner of Customs vs. Worldwide Cargo
Movers 18;
(viii) Noble Agency vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai 19;
(ix) Gursharan Singh Walia vs. Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive) 20; and
(x) Bhaskar Logistic Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of
India 21
12. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case.
13. The allegation against the appellant is that invoice values and
description found on the invoices pasted on the boxes/bags and invoice
details uploaded electronically in Electronic Courier Clearance System
(ECCS) or as found in Courier Bills of Entry (CBE) filed were different.
Further, eight boxes were destined to States other than the 7 States
permitted vide Public Notice dated 7.5.2019; that in consignments
imported by the appellant courier agency, there were discrepancies
with respect to the address of the consignees; some of the
consignments were addressed to States which were not mentioned in
the Public Notice cited above; that it had violated the provisions of
Courier Regulations and the Public Notice dated 07.05.2019 issued by
Commissioner (Air Cargo Complex) Export, New Delhi.
14. The appellant does not deny the aforesaid facts. The appellant
submits that the mistake occurred at the end of their overseas
counterpart. The appellant submitted that the mistake occurred due to
clerical error and technical glitches at the consignor's end at Bahrain
and Doha and that as soon as the error was noticed, the same was
communicated to the appellant and it sought amendment of the
17. 1997(96)E.L.T.469(Tribunal)
18. 2010 (253) E.L.T. 190 (Bom.)
19. 2002(142)E.L.T.84(Tri.- Mumbai)
20. 2017(347)E.L.T.132(Tri.-Del.)
21. 2016(340)E.L.T.17(Pat.)
9
C/51027/2020
declarations but meanwhile officers of Special Investigation and
Intelligence Branch (SIIB) intercepted the consignments and started
investigation.
15. The reasoning given by the appellant cannot be accepted. It is
very difficult to believe that there was a technical glitch and clerical
error at both places abroad at the same time. The appellant did not
produce any evidence, either before the Commissioner or before this
Bench to substantiate this submission. It only submitted that it had
cancelled the consignments and returned the packets to the senders.
However, no evidence of such cancellation was given. It is very difficult
to believe that a courier agency working at an international level would
work in this unprofessional manner. Assuming that the contention of
the appellant that the consignments which were destined to
Maharashtra and other States other than the seven States mentioned
in the above cited Public Notice have by mistake arrived at Delhi. The
most logical explanation would have been showing evidence to the
effect that the consignments destined to the seven States had gone to
other destinations, in case of any interchange as claimed by the
appellants. However, no such evidence has been put forth by the
appellant. It has also not produced any evidence to indicate the
cancellation of some consignments, whose addresses were found
affixed on the boxes imported at Delhi. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that the submissions of the appellant is only a
feeble attempt to cover up the lapses on its part. The Commissioner
and the Inquiry Officer have observed that it was difficult to presume
that mistake of the same nature happened in the software at two
different offices at Bahrain and Doha. The appellant itself accepted that
the details of invoices were not double checked by their staff due to
10
C/51027/2020
carelessness. The mismatch in the consignor/ consignee details was a
modus operandi adopted by the appellant to circumvent the Public
Notice.
16. The main allegation on the appellant Courier Agency is that it
had violated the provisions of the Courier Regulations. A look at the
relevant Regulations, alleged to have been violated by the appellants,
would be beneficial to appreciate the issue in a better perspective.
(i) Regulation 4(2) of CIER, 2010: "Imported or export goods shall
bear a declaration from the sender or consignor regarding the
contents of each packages and the total value thereof.
(ii) Regulation 5(4) of the CIER, 2010: "The Authorised Courier
shall present imported goods brought by him or by his agent, in
such manner as to satisfaction of the proper officer or as per
instructions issued by the Board or Public Noticeissued by
Commissioner of Customs, from time to time , for inspection ,
screening, examination and assessment thereof'.
(iii) Regulation 12(1)(i) of CIER, 2010: An Authorised Courier shall
obtain an authorisation, from each of the consignees or
consignors of the imported goods for whom or from whom such
Courier has imported such goods; or consignees or consignors
of such export goods which such Courier proposes to export, to
the effect that the Authorised Courier may act as agent of such
consignee or consignor, as the case may be, for clearance of
such imported or export goods by the proper officer...'
(iv) Regulation 12(1)(iii) of CIER, 2010:"An Authorised Courier shall
advise his consignor or consignee to comply with the provisions
of the Act, rules and regulations made thereunder and in case
of non-compliance thereof, he shall bring the matter to the
notice of the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner
of Customs"
(v) Regulation 12(1)(v) of CIER, 2010 : "An Authorised Courier
shall exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and
completeness of any information which he submits to the
proper officer with reference of any work related to the
clearance of imported goods or export goods."
(vi) Regulation 12(1)(v) of CIER, 2010: " An Authorised Courier
shall not withhold any information relating to assessment and
clearance of imported goods or of export goods, from the
Assessing Officer"
11
C/51027/2020
(vii) Regulation 12(1)(v) of CIER, 2010: "An Authorised Courier shall
abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations,
notifications and order issued thereunder".
17. The Enquiry Officer has given a clear finding that by acts of
commission and omission, the appellant clearly violated the provisions
of Regulation 4(2), 5(4), 12(1) (i), 12(1) (iii), 12 (1) (v), 12 (1) (vii) &
12 (1) (x) of the Courier Regulations, the provisions of Public Notice
No.03/2019 and the provisions of Section 111 of Customs Act. The
submissions made before us by the appellant were also made before
the Commissioner, who has considered all the submissions of the
appellant and came to the conclusion that the appellant violated the
provisions of the Courier Regulations. The Commissioner has discussed
the violations of each of the provisions of the above cited Regulations
as under:
"28. Now, I discuss the alleged violation of the various
provisions of the CIER, 2010 by the Noticee one by one:
28.1. The Regulation 4(2) of the CIER, 2010 mandates truthful
declaration regarding contents of the packages imported and
values thereof. As discussed supra, it has been found beyond doubt
that the Noticee made wrong and incorrect declaration about the
contents and values of the courier packages and violated the
provisions of the Regulation 4(2) of the CIER, 2010.
28.2. As for the compliance of the Regulation 5(4) of the
CIER, 2010 is concerned, 8 HAWBs/ boxes were found to be
destined to states other than the 7 states in violation of the Public
Notices. The IO has also found that the invoices/packing lists
pasted on the boxes were correct and to get clearance of these 8
boxes wrong ECM and invoice details were entered to bypass the
PNs. As has already been discussed, all this happened with active
knowledge of the Noticee. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding
that the Authorised Courier has failed in complying with the
provisions of the Regulation 5(4) of the CIER, 2010.
28.3. Further, it is not in doubt here that consignee-consignor
details pasted on the boxes did not match with the details provided
12
C/51027/2020
by the Noticee in the ECM. It is obvious that the Noticee had
authorisation as per the ECM details but the boxes had different
consignee-consignor pasted on them to whom the boxes were
actually meant to be delivered. Natural inference is that the
Noticee did not have authorisation from the actual consigners. In
their defence, the Noticee have submitted that they did not commit
any altering and tampering in the invoices/details, however, the
operation manager of the Noticee did admit in his statement that
they and their overseas counterparts knew about the
discrepancies. By not disclosing this fact to the department timely,
the Noticee only proved their guilt in the matter. Here, I concur
with the findings of the IO that 'the mis-match in the details of the
consignor & consignee as stated in the ECM vis-a-vis those
mentioned on the declaration pasted on the packages, establishes
that they have also obtained wrong authorisation from the
consignor which is required at the pre-clearance stage.' Hence, I
hold that the Noticee have not acted in accordance with the
Regulation 12(l)(i) of the CIER, 2010.
28.4. Against the allegation of violation of the Regulation
12(1)(iii) of the CIER 2010, the Noticee have submitted that 'the
said issue was addressed before the designated officer as and
when the Noticee got constructive knowledge about the inadvertent
omission'. I find this to be a fallacious argument as it has been
established beyond doubt that the Noticee had prior knowledge of
the discrepancies yet they went ahead with their efforts to get the
shipments Custom cleared. Not only did the Noticee not advise
their clients about the restrictions stipulated by the PNs but did not
inform the department about the discrepancies in the shipments.
The impugned goods were mis-declared not only in terms of
description but their value was also not correctly declared. This
only affirms the view of that the Noticee was the kingpin of the
whole scheme. Thus, I hold that the Noticee has violated provisions
of the Regulation 12(1)(iii) of the CIER, 2010.
28.5. The mis-declaration regarding consigner-consignee
details; description, quantity and value of the goods has already
been proven in this case. It has been established that the Noticee
were aware about the said discrepancies prior to filing of the Bills
of Entry for the impugned goods. It is also on record that dutiable
goods were presented as gift consignments for Customs clearance.
Thus, it is not difficult to conclude that the Noticee did not submit
correct and complete information to the proper officer while
presenting the goods for clearance and violated the provisions of
the Regulation 12(1)(v) of the CIER, 2010.
13
C/51027/2020
28.6. Moreover, it is amply clear from the case-facts that the
Noticee concealed correct information vis-a-vis the description,
value and quantity of the impugned goods from the assessing
officer which was eventually detected by the investigating agency
and resulted in re-assessment culminating thereby in conversion of
the gift consignments into dutiable consignments. The planned
evasion of duty could be stopped only due to alertness of the
Customs officers. So, it suffices to hold that the Authorized Courier
did withhold assessment and clearance related information from
the assessing officer and thus they contravened the provisions of
the Regulation 12(1)(vii) of the CIER, 2010.
28.7. From the discussion above, it crystallizes that the
Noticee did violate provisions of the Customs Act 1962; Customs
Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007;
the CIER, 2010 and the Public Notices issued for proper functioning
of the EICI Terminal of New Courier Terminal (NCT), New Delhi.
Thus, I hold that the Noticee violated provisions of the Regulation
12(1)(x) of the CIER, 2010."
18. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the appellant had
failed to comply with the provisions stipulated in Public Notices dated
7.5.219 and 15.5.2019 inasmuch eight boxes were destined to States
other than that seven States in violation of the said Public Notices. We
are in agreement with the submission of the learned Authorised
Representative that the appellant mis-declared the particulars like
consignee-consignor address, value, quantity and description of goods
in the House Air Way Bills (HAWB) and that when the address of
consignee was given wrongly, the appellant would have been in no
position to obtain the requisite authorization from the actual
consignor/consignee as mandated in the Regulation 12(1) (i) of the
Courier Regulations. The appellant did not disclose/ declare the actual
consignor/consignee for the purpose of the clearance of their goods.
Therefore, the department was not wrong in alleging that the appellant
had mis-declared the details in House Air Way Bills (HAWB), in terms
14
C/51027/2020
of consignee-consignor address, value, quantity and description of
goods. By applying the principle of preponderance of probability, we
find it quite logical to accept the contention of the department that the
the appellant had an intention to evade payment of customs duty. The
conclusion is fortified by the fact that the appellant had accepted the
enhanced value and paid up the differential duty without raising a
protest. It is apparent that the appellant attempted to get the dutiable
goods cleared in guise of gift consignments. But for the interception
by Customs Officers, organised evasion and flouting of Rules on the
part of the appellant would have gone unnoticed. The commissioner
has brought out each of the violations of the Courier Regulations, by
the appellant. Therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever, that the
appellant violated not only the provisions of the Courier Regulations
but also the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
19. The courier registration issued to the appellant clearly stated
that the Authorised Courier shall strictly adhere to the provisions laid
down in the Notification No.36/2010-Customs (NT) dated 05.05.2010
(as amended) and the permission to operate as Authorised Courier will
be revoked, de-registered or suspended on any of the following
grounds:
a. Failure of the Authorised Courier to comply with any of
the conditions of the bond executed by him under
Regulation 11 of the Notification No.36/2010-Customs
(NT);
b. Failure of the Authorised Courier to comply with any of
the provisions of the Courier Imports and Exports
(Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations,
2010; and
c. Any misconduct on the part of the Authorised Courier.
15
C/51027/2020
20. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon Ashiana Cargo
Services. The facts of the case therein are entirely different from the
present case. The above case pertains to a Custom Broker who was
penalised for concealment detected in one of the consignments and
there was no evidence to the effect that the G-Card Holder the Custom
Broker was aware of the concealment. In the impugned case before
us, the appellant it is alleged to have committed various violations and
the Authorized Representative of the appellant has accepted that there
was mis-declaration though he tried to blame it on the consignor's
end. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment cannot, in any manner,
come to the aid of the appellant. The Department has also relied on a
number of cases. Some of the cases pertain to maintainability of the
appeal before Tribunal. In view of the subsequent decisions by the
Tribunal, this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide on the issue. Most
of the cases relied upon by the Department pertain to Custom Broker
Licence and a few cases pertain to the Courier Service. However, even
in the cases pertaining to Courier, the facts of the cases are different
from the present case. Therefore, we do not find them relevant to the
present proceedings.
21. The Government has been simplifying the law and procedure
relating to imports through courier from time to time. Accordingly, lot
of trust and reliance has been placed on the courier agencies. A very
clear procedure has been put in place by way of Courier Regulations to
stream line the imports through Courier mode. It was incumbent upon
the appellant Courier agency to adhere to the Regulations in order to
safeguard the interest of Revenue and the trust placed on them. The
appellant Courier was mandated to work within legal framework of the
Customs Act, 1962, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The
16
C/51027/2020
appellant failed to do so. The appellant did not exercise due diligence
in submitting the correct and complete information to the assessing
officer with reference to the impugned goods. By violating the
Regulations, it had given scope for massive misuse of the facility given
in addition to loss of Revenue. In short, the appellant courier agency
has breached the trust reposed on it by the Revenue. Therefore, the
revocation of License is justified and any leniency shown in the
misconduct of this nature would send wrong signals. Punishment of
revocation of Licence would certainly go a long way to act as a
deterrent. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with
the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal is liable for rejection.
22. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
(Order Pronounced on 10.05.2022)
(JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA)
PRESIDENT
(P. ANJANI KUMAR)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
17
C/51027/2020
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51027 OF 2020 - Cus. (DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 28/MK/REVOCATION/POLICY/2020 dated
25/06/2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi -
110 037.]
M/s. Speedway Cargo & Courier Services ...Appellant
Room No.2 & 3, House No.819,
Second Floor, Block K-2,
VillMahipalpur Extension,
Near Baba House,
New Delhi - 110 037.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent
(Import & General)
New Custom House,
Near I.G.I Airport,
New Delhi - 110 037
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ranjish Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Nagendra Yadav, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Date of Hearing: 03/03/2022
Date of Decision:10/05/2022
ORDER
Order Pronounced (P. ANJANI KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)