2016 (8) TMI 1073 - AT - Customs

Revocation of registration - Held that - Registration was revoked alongwith forfeiture of ₹ 10,00,000/- security deposit, is that they are not authorized courier as per Regulation 3 (a) of CIER, 1998/Regulation 3 (1) (b) of CIER, 2010. We note that both these are definition clause of authorized courier . We note that the registration in 2009 has been granted by the Competent Authority, apparently after due process. The review of the registration has been done prompted by guidelines for improved monitoring of cargo movement issued by the Board in September 2010. It is an admitted fact that the appellant have not filed any bill for clearance of any import or export package and are yet to start their operation as authorized courier in terms of the registration granted. In such situation, we find forfeiture of ₹ 10,00,000/-security deposit without any contravention by the appellant is not justifiable. Such punitive action has to have a premise of violation of certain provision of law. The same is not demonstrated in the present case. Regarding revocation of registration, we find the action of the lower Authority is preemptive though aimed at enforcing certain revised guidelines for improved monitoring and better compliance of cargo movement across the border. We find that taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellant and also the fact that they are yet to commence the operation that and are pleading the financial difficulty as a reason for delay in improving the infrastructure, we find it fit and proper to direct the learned Commissioner for re-verification of the facilities in December 2016 by which tinie the appellant has undertaken to put up all the required infrastructure in place and thereafter to take a fresh decision about the continuation of the appellant as authorized courier in terms of the above Regulations.

Summary

Issues:
Review of registration of authorized courier under CIER, 1998 and CIER, 2010 based on guidelines issued by the Board in 2010. Alleged contravention of Regulations 3 (a) of CIER, 1998/Regulation 3 (1) (c) of CIER, 2010 leading to revocation of registration and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appellant, a registered authorized courier, faced proceedings for not furnishing a bank or solvency certificate as per the amended Regulation 8 (1) of CIER, 1998. The Original Authority concluded a contravention of Regulation 3 (a) of CIER, 1998/Regulation 3 (1) (c) of CIER, 2010, leading to revocation of registration and forfeiture of the security deposit.

The appellant argued compliance with the amended provisions, initiated infrastructure development post-registration, and explained delays due to capital-intensive requirements. They assured completion by December 2016 to meet international standards. The learned Counsel emphasized no contravention occurred as no courier bill was filed yet.

The learned AR supported the lower Authority's decision, emphasizing the need for review and revocation based on inadequate facilities.

The Tribunal found the revocation premature as the appellant had not contravened any regulations and had not commenced operations as an authorized courier. The forfeiture lacked justification without a legal violation. Considering the appellant's commitments to upgrade infrastructure by December 2016, the Tribunal remanded the matter for re-verification of facilities and a fresh decision on continuation as an authorized courier.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh consideration based on the appellant's commitments and lack of legal violations.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2016)