2013 (11) TMI 1395 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 117 on courier service provider - Authorization under Regulation 13(a) not produced - Held that - goods arrived on 22.06.2009 and they filed the bill of entry as per manifest and the goods are also detained on the same date. It is contended that after filing of the bill of entry, they obtained the authorization for clearance of the goods as per normal practice. Be that as it may, it is seen that eight consignees appared and goods were cleared to them. Apart from that, eight consignees also appeared and disowned the goods. In any event, three consignees are non-existent and only one person received the notice but did not turn up. It is noted that the effect of non-filing of authorization would apply in respect of the three consignees only. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that after thorough discussions that in this factual background none of the clauses of Section 111 would be invoked and, therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 112 is set aside. It is noted that the authorised representative made an elaborate submission on this issue but no appeal was filed by the Revenue - it is fit case that the penalty should be set aside after giving a caution to the appellant and they should avoid such irregularity in future, if any - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on a courier company under Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 1998 for failure to produce authorization for clearance of imported goods.
2. Applicability of penalty provisions under Sections 111, 112, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of Regulation 13(a) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulation, 1998.
4. Consideration of factual background and non-appearance of consignees in relation to penalty imposition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant, a courier company, faced penalty under Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 1998 for not producing authorization for clearance of imported goods. The penalty was imposed based on the failure to comply with Regulation 13(a) of the Regulation, 1998, which mandates obtaining authorization from consignees. The appellant argued that the penalty would adversely affect their business, emphasizing their compliance with filing procedures upon goods' arrival at the airport.

Issue 2: The Revenue contended that the penalty under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified due to incorrect declaration of goods' value and non-compliance with declaration requirements. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the penalty, setting aside the application of Section 111 and reducing the penalty under Section 117. The Tribunal noted the absence of an appeal by the Revenue against the modified penalty.

Issue 3: Regulation 13(a) of the Regulation, 1998 necessitates authorized couriers to obtain consignees' authorization for goods clearance. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's failure to produce authorization for three non-existent consignees warranted penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with this observation, leading to a cautionary setting aside of the penalty with guidance for future compliance.

Issue 4: The factual background revealed discrepancies in consignees' appearances and disownment of goods, influencing penalty considerations. The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 112 was not applicable in this case, as highlighted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and supported by the absence of a Revenue appeal. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, advising the appellant to avoid such irregularities in the future.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty while cautioning the appellant to adhere to regulatory requirements to prevent future penalties. The judgment focused on the specific provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 1998, highlighting the importance of compliance with authorization procedures for courier companies dealing with imported goods.