2016 (12) TMI 895 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 - appellant was carrying out the delivery of courier packages without any legal permission from the Customs to act as handler and also he was suspected to deliver the goods at the location which did not conform to the address mentioned in the importing firms - offending goods were confiscated while courier packages were in customs custody. Held that - Considering that the packages in question were not ripe for delivery at the stage of seizure, such a finding appears to be without any basis. It is also said that the appellant acted as a service provider or a business aid/business associate for other courier; such outsourcing a portion of the business of courier does not fall within the ambit of Courier (Import & Export) Clearance Regulations 1998 which places the entire responsibility for clearance, as well as delivery upon the courier. For the above reasons I find no merit in the impugned order and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Recovery of concealed gold jewellery in imported packages, Penalty imposed on the appellant, Interpretation of section 112 of the Customs Act 1962

Recovery of Concealed Gold Jewellery:
The judgment revolves around the recovery of 4879.90 gms of gold jewellery concealed in imported packages. The appellant, acting as a service provider for courier parcels, was found to have aided and abetted in the unauthorized import and clearance of goods concealed in machinery. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of ?5 lakhs on the appellant, which was upheld in the impugned order. The appellant's role in collecting courier packages on behalf of the importer without legal permission from Customs led to the penalty being imposed for aiding and abetting in smuggling the gold jewellery.

Penalty Imposed on the Appellant:
The central issue was whether the appellant, under section 112 of the Customs Act 1962, could be held liable for a penalty for acts or omissions that render goods liable to confiscation. The appellant argued that since the goods were not cleared and were entirely handled by the courier company, he should not be burdened with allegations of acts or omissions for penalty imposition. Citing a previous tribunal decision, the appellant contended that his role was limited to collecting packages after customs clearance and delivering them to consignees, thus not warranting penalty imposition. The Authorized Representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

Interpretation of Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962:
The judgment delved into the interpretation of section 112 of the Customs Act 1962, focusing on whether the appellant's actions fell within the scope of rendering goods liable to confiscation. The appellant's delivery of courier packages without legal permission from Customs and delivering goods to locations not conforming to importing firms' addresses were scrutinized. The tribunal found that the appellant's role as a service provider for courier packages did not align with the Courier (Import & Export) Clearance Regulations 1998, which place the responsibility for clearance and delivery solely on the courier. Consequently, the tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the recovery of concealed gold jewellery in imported packages, the penalty imposed on the appellant for aiding and abetting in unauthorized import and clearance, and the interpretation of section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 regarding penalty imposition for acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation. The tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for the penalty in the appellant's role as a service provider for courier packages.