9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 497 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Courier License - mismatch in the invoice values and description found on the invoices pasted on the boxes/bags and invoice details uploaded electronically in Electronic Courier Clearance System (ECCS) or as found in Courier Bills of Entry (CBE) - appellant submits that the mistake occurred at the end of their overseas counterpart - HELD THAT - It is apparent from the facts of the case that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions stipulated in Public Notices dated 7.5.219 and 15.5.2019 inasmuch eight boxes were destined to States other than that seven States in violation of the said Public Notices. The submission of the learned Authorised Representative that the appellant mis-declared the particulars like consignee-consignor address, value, quantity and description of goods in the House Air Way Bills (HAWB) and that when the address of consignee was given wrongly, the appellant would have been in no position to obtain the requisite authorization from the actual consignor/consignee as mandated in the Regulation 12(1) (i) of the Courier Regulations, cannot be agreed upon. The appellant did not disclose/ declare the actual consignor/consignee for the purpose of the clearance of their goods. Therefore, the department was not wrong in alleging that the appellant had mis-declared the details in House Air Way Bills (HAWB), in terms of consignee-consignor address, value, quantity and description of goods. By applying the principle of preponderance of probability, we find it quite logical to accept the contention of the department that the the appellant had an intention to evade payment of customs duty. The Government has been simplifying the law and procedure relating to imports through courier from time to time. Accordingly, lot of trust and reliance has been placed on the courier agencies. A very clear procedure has been put in place by way of Courier Regulations to stream line the imports through Courier mode. It was incumbent upon the appellant Courier agency to adhere to the Regulations in order to safeguard the interest of Revenue and the trust placed on them. The appellant Courier was mandated to work within legal framework of the Customs Act, 1962, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The appellant failed to do so. The appellant did not exercise due diligence in submitting the correct and complete information to the assessing officer with reference to the impugned goods. By violating the Regulations, it had given scope for massive misuse of the facility given in addition to loss of Revenue. In short, the appellant courier agency has breached the trust reposed on it by the Revenue. Therefore, the revocation of License is justified and any leniency shown in the misconduct of this nature would send wrong signals. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged violation of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 and Public Notice dated 07.05.2019. 2. Discrepancies in the consignments and mis-declaration of goods. 3. Proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Suspension and revocation of courier license. 5. Allegation of mens rea and proportionality of punishment. 6. Jurisdiction of CESTAT to hear the appeal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Alleged violation of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 and Public Notice dated 07.05.2019 The appellant, M/s. Speedy Cargo and Courier Service, was alleged to have violated the Courier Regulations and the Public Notice dated 07.05.2019. Specifically, discrepancies were found in seventeen consignments, with eight boxes consigned to states not permitted by the Public Notice and nine consignments having mismatched names/addresses between the declarations and invoices. Issue 2: Discrepancies in the consignments and mis-declaration of goods The appellant imported shipments from Doha and Bahrain, which were examined and found to have discrepancies. The appellant attributed these discrepancies to technical problems in the software used for generating addresses and carelessness by their staff. However, the Tribunal found it difficult to believe the appellant's explanation, noting the lack of evidence to support the claim of technical glitches and clerical errors at both overseas locations simultaneously. Issue 3: Proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 Proceedings were initiated under the Customs Act, 1962, resulting in an Order-in-original dated 25.09.2019. The value of the impugned goods was enhanced, and penalties were imposed under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Act. The appellant accepted the order and paid the levies without filing an appeal. Issue 4: Suspension and revocation of courier license The Commissioner of Customs suspended the courier license of the appellant and issued a show cause notice for revocation. An Inquiry Officer concluded that the appellant contravened several provisions of the Courier Regulations, leading to the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the security amount, and imposition of a penalty. Issue 5: Allegation of mens rea and proportionality of punishment The appellant argued that there was no evidence of mens rea or intention to defraud the government and that the infractions were due to technical glitches and negligence. The appellant also cited financial and personal hardships resulting from the closure of their business. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's explanations were inconsistent and lacked credibility. The Tribunal held that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the offence, referencing the principle of proportionality as discussed in Ashiana Cargo Services vs. Commissioner of Customs. Issue 6: Jurisdiction of CESTAT to hear the appeal The respondent argued that the appeal against the revocation of the courier license should lie with the Chief Commissioner and not CESTAT. However, the Tribunal maintained its jurisdiction to decide on the issue, referencing relevant case laws. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant violated the Courier Regulations and the Customs Act, 1962, by mis-declaring the details of the consignments. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanations unconvincing and upheld the revocation of the courier license, forfeiture of the security amount, and imposition of penalties. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of adherence to legal and regulatory frameworks in courier operations.
|
