2014 (11) TMI 381 - HC - Customs

Revocation of license - contravention of Regulation 13(a), 13(g) & 13(j) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearances) Regulations, 1998 - Non submission of authorisations for delivery of the consignments to the consignees and further, the signatures appearing on several authorisations appeared to be similar, which indicated that the signatures on the authorisations were forged/fabricated. In addition, it was alleged that petitioner had availed of the services of another courier without any prior permission of the Commissioner of Customs as required by virtue of Regulation 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations - Forfeiture of security amount - Held that - It is apparent that the petitioner has failed to approach this Court with clean hands. The details of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of clearing goods under fictitious names has not been disclosed. Although, the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 refers to show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner (Exports) for denial of benefit of notification no.154/94-CUS dated 13.07.1994. Apparently, the allegations against the petitioner are not merely procedural but serious as the genuineness of the consignees is in doubt. The least that was required of the petitioner was to, candidly, disclose the nature of all allegations made against the petitioner. However, even though the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 refers to other proceedings, the petitioner has carefully ensured that the writ petition is bereft of any details as to the other proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner in respect of the consignments purportedly delivered by the petitioner. The show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 contained an allegation that the petitioner had not been submitting authorisations which were statutorily required. It was further alleged that the signatures on delivery proofs of consignments imported were forged/fabricated and the petitioner had sublet delivery of goods to another courier without prior permission as required. The impugned order dated 17.06.2014 had further specifically noted that the petitioner had not submitted authorisation certificates in respect of 40 bills of entries during the period 16.10.2012 to 31.10.2012. The allegation with respect to non-submission of authorisation certificates had been indicated in the show cause notice. In addition, the imports made by the petitioner were, apparently, subject matter of another show cause notice referred to by the Chief Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order dated 17.06.2014. The petitioner, thus, had full knowledge of the allegations and also had the opportunity for meeting the same. - No reason to interfere with impugned order - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of the petitioner's license as an authorized courier.
2. Imposition of a penalty on the petitioner.
3. Allegations of procedural violations and forgery.
4. Non-disclosure of relevant facts by the petitioner.
5. Compliance with the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearances) Regulations, 1998.
6. Adequacy of the opportunity provided to the petitioner to respond to allegations.
7. Propriety of the punitive measures imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of the Petitioner's License as an Authorized Courier:
The petitioner challenged the revocation of its license as an authorized courier by the Commissioner of Customs (I & G) via an order dated 21.02.2014, which was upheld by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on 17.06.2014. The revocation was based on the petitioner's failure to submit authorizations for delivery of consignments and the use of another courier service without prior permission, violating Regulation 13(a), 13(g), and 13(j) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearances) Regulations, 1998.

2. Imposition of a Penalty on the Petitioner:
A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. The Commissioner of Customs found that the petitioner had not maintained proper records and had submitted forged/fabricated delivery certificates. The Chief Commissioner of Customs upheld this penalty, emphasizing the serious nature of the violations, including potential revenue implications and manipulation of documents.

3. Allegations of Procedural Violations and Forgery:
The allegations against the petitioner included not submitting authorizations, using another courier service without permission, and forging signatures on delivery certificates. The petitioner admitted to procedural lapses and the unauthorized use of another courier but contended that these were not deliberate acts of misconduct.

4. Non-disclosure of Relevant Facts by the Petitioner:
The court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose the details of other proceedings initiated against it for clearing goods under fictitious names, which were relevant to the case. This non-disclosure was seen as an attempt to mislead the court, justifying the dismissal of the writ petition on these grounds alone.

5. Compliance with the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearances) Regulations, 1998:
The court referred to Regulations 13(a), 13(g), and 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations, which outline the obligations of an authorized courier, including obtaining authorizations, maintaining records, and not subcontracting without permission. The petitioner admitted to violations of these regulations, which supported the revocation of its license.

6. Adequacy of the Opportunity Provided to the Petitioner to Respond to Allegations:
The court found that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations. The show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 clearly outlined the allegations, and the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and the opportunity to present its case.

7. Propriety of the Punitive Measures Imposed:
The petitioner argued for suspension instead of revocation of its license. However, the court clarified that Regulation 14 of the 1998 Regulations does not provide for suspension as a punitive measure but only as an interim measure pending inquiry. The court found the punitive measures of revocation and penalty appropriate given the seriousness of the violations.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petitioner's violations of the 1998 Regulations, non-disclosure of relevant facts, and the serious nature of the allegations justified the revocation of the license and the imposition of the penalty.