2022 (10) TMI 1086 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - Forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - Confiscation of goods - revocation of license of the courier was set aside on the ground that the offence was committed by its employee without knowledge of the courier firm and also for the reason that the licence of the courier had already been suspended for one year before and therefore the courier had suffered sufficient punishment - HELD THAT - It is undisputed that commercial goods whose import requires an Import Export Code (IEC) and also clearance and FSSAI (in case of food supplements) were imported through 37 bills of entry filed by the appellant. These were filed in the name of 37 different people who had nothing to do with nor any knowledge of the imports. The appellant had in its possession the details of these people which it misused. The real owner of the goods was Shri Anmol Krishna Murthy who, in his statement, admitted that the details of the consignors and consignees indicated in the bills of entry and on the cartons were provided to him by Shri Azarouddin Kadar of the appellant firm. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that simply because an employee of the appellant had committed an error or fraud, the licence of the appellant should not be revoked. This statement cannot be accepted. The employee of the courier has no locus standi in getting the goods cleared through the customs. The licence is issued to the appellant and the appellant has to get the goods cleared - It is not the case that somebody hacked into the system and misused the credentials of the appellant to file the bills of entry. They were filed by the appellant s own employee Shri Azarouddin Kadar Riswan who was employed as Assistant Manager by the appellant to manage its business in Delhi. Therefore, the full responsibility for any action of the employees of the appellant rests on the appellant. Regulation 12(1)(i) requires the courier to obtain an authorisation from each of the consignees or consignors of imported goods for couriers of export goods to the effect that it may act as an agent of such consignor or consignee. In this case the so called consignors and consignees indicated in the bills of entry had nothing to do with the consignments - there is no error in the order of the Commissioner holding that the appellant has violated the Regulations. These provide that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may revoke the registration of an authorised courier and also pass an order for forfeiture of security on any of the grounds prescribed. The impugned order was correct in holding that the appellant violated several regulations there is no reason for us to interfere with the forfeiture of security deposit - for the various contraventions of these regulations as discussed the appellant was correctly held liable to penalty under Regulation 14 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of license under the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010.
2. Forfeiture of security deposit.
3. Imposition of penalty.
4. Alleged contravention of various provisions of the CIER, 2010 by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of License:
The appellant, M/s Sitex International, had their license revoked under the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, for contravening multiple provisions of Regulation 12(1). The appellant was found responsible for mis-declaring commercial goods as household items, thereby attempting to bypass the requirements for an Import Export Code (IEC) and clearance from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The appellant's employee, Shri Azarouddin Ansari Kadar, filed 37 courier bills of entry with incorrect consignee details, which were used to import food supplements and ladies suits. The Tribunal held that the appellant, being the license holder, was responsible for the actions of its employees and had full knowledge of the illegal imports. The revocation of the license was upheld as the appellant violated Regulations 12(1)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (x).

2. Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- was forfeited as per Regulation 13(1) of the CIER, 2010. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the bond executed under Regulation 11 and violated several provisions of the Regulations. The appellant's argument that the Regulations do not provide for forfeiture of the security deposit was dismissed, as Regulation 13 explicitly allows for such forfeiture in addition to the revocation of registration.

3. Imposition of Penalty:
A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Regulation 14 of the CIER, 2010. The Tribunal upheld this penalty, finding that the appellant was liable for contraventions of the Regulations. The appellant's actions, including mis-declaration of goods and misuse of consignee details, warranted the imposition of the penalty.

4. Alleged Contravention of Provisions:
The appellant was found to have contravened the following provisions:
- Regulation 12(1)(i): The appellant failed to obtain proper authorization from consignees or consignors, as the names used were not the actual importers or owners of the goods.
- Regulation 12(1)(iii): The appellant did not advise the consignees to comply with the provisions of the Act and facilitated the violation of rules.
- Regulation 12(1)(iv): The appellant did not verify the antecedents and correctness of the consignee details, as the goods were imported in the names of unrelated persons.
- Regulation 12(1)(v): The appellant did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correctness of the information submitted to customs.
- Regulation 12(1)(vii): The appellant withheld information relating to the assessment and clearance of imported goods from customs officials.
- Regulation 12(1)(x): The appellant did not abide by the provisions of the Act and rules, as it knowingly filed incorrect bills of entry.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions were deliberate and aimed at evading customs duty and regulatory requirements. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld in its entirety.