2014 (5) TMI 865 - AT - Customs

Proceedings against Courier agency - Valuation of goods - Mis declaration - Penalty - Held that - Allegation against the appellant is that they failed to advice the client properly to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as required under Regulation 13(b) and failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness or completeness of any information relating to the clearance of the import goods or of export goods as envisaged under Regulation 13(c) of the Courier Import & Export (Clearance) Regulation, 1998. On perusal of the records it is seen that there is no evidence adduced by the Revenue to substantiate the allegation that the appellant failed to carry out the responsibility in respect of the impugned transactions. The appellant accepted the value given by the shipper/importer and have declared the same in the courier bill of entry. For such bona fide action on the part of the appellant, the provisions of Regulation 13(b) and 13(c) of the said Regulations are not attracted. Accordingly, we are of the view that imposition of penalty on the courier agency is not warranted for mis-declaration of value by the importer - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of value in courier bill of entry leading to penalty imposition under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Mis-declaration and Penalty Imposition:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding a courier bill of entry filed for the clearance of software. The appellant, a courier company, faced penalties due to the mis-declaration of the value of imported goods. The appellant argued that they relied on the information provided by the shipper in good faith and should not be penalized for the shipper's mis-declaration. The Revenue alleged violations of regulations and the Customs Act, but failed to provide evidence of the courier agency's involvement in the mis-declaration. The Tribunal noted that the appellant acted in good faith by accepting the value provided by the shipper without evidence of negligence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that penalties imposed on the courier agency were unwarranted, as the regulations were not applicable in this context.

2. Regulatory Compliance and Due Diligence:
The dispute centered around whether the courier agency fulfilled its obligations under the Courier Import & Export (Clearance) Regulation, 1998, and the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the agency failed to advise the client properly and did not exercise due diligence as required by the regulations. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to support these allegations. It observed that the agency had declared the value provided by the shipper in the courier bill of entry, indicating a lack of intentional wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the agency. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the courier agency was unjustified, as there was no substantiation of the alleged failures in regulatory compliance and due diligence.

3. Decision and Relief Granted:
After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded to address the appeal directly. It found that the Revenue failed to prove that the courier agency had neglected its responsibilities under the regulations. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and relieving the appellant of the penalties imposed. The judgment emphasized that the agency's reliance on the shipper's information in good faith did not warrant penalty imposition, as there was no evidence of deliberate non-compliance or negligence on the agency's part.