Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Based on the above investigations, the present show cause notice dt. 14.10.2013 was issued to the appellant under Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 proposing to revoke the registration as authorized courier and also for Customs Appeal No. 40271 of 2016 forfeiture of the security deposit. After due process of law, the original authority vide order dt. 28.04.2014 ordered for revocation of registration granted to the appellant as authorized courier and also ordered for forfeiture of Rs.10 lakhs being the security deposit made by them for registration. They then filed representation before Chief Commissioner who then vide order dt. 23.07.2014 upheld the same. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.

7. Ld. Counsel adverted to the show cause notice and submitted that the allegation raised is that the appellant has violated Regulation 13 (a) of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. The said regulation prescribes the obligations of an Authorized Courier. It is stated that the appellant had an obligation to obtain an authorization, consignee of the import goods for whom such courier has imported goods. In the present case, the only infraction on the part of appellant is that such authorization was not obtained from the consignee. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the present case, the entire manipulation and clandestine clearance of the parcels/consignments was done without the knowledge of the appellant and by an employee of the appellant. In para-17 of the SCN it is alleged that appellant allowed his employee Mr. Naveen Kumar to manipulate their system so as to tamper the import manifest and smuggle high value goods through courier. In fact, the appellant had not allowed or given any instruction to Naveen Kumar to manipulate the system. It is admitted by Sri Naveen Kumar that appellant had no role in the illegal activity committed by him.

11. Heard both sides.

12. The appellant had been issued a show cause notice proposing to impose penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The present SCN is issued under the provisions of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (herein referred to as Courier Regulations, 1998). The allegation in the SCN is that the appellant has failed to comply with Regulation 13 of the Courier Regulations. The relevant part of SCN is as under :

"16. From the above it appears that M/s.UPS Jet Air Express Private Limited, 3/26, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083 have failed to comply with Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 as amended by the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Amendment Regulations 2010 issued vide Notification No.75/2010 - Customs (N.T) dated 12/08/2010 as detailed below :
a) Obtain an authorization, from each of the consignees of the Import goods for whom such courier has imported such goods or consigners of such export goods which such courier propose to export, to the effect that the Authorized Courier may act as agent of such consignee or consigner, as the case may be for clearance of such import of export goods by the proper officer ;

Provided that for import consignments having a declared value of ten though rupees or les, the authorization may be obtained at the time of delivery of the consignments to consignee Customs Appeal No. 40271 of 2016