9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 806 - AT - CustomsForfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit alongwith imposing penalty on the Appellant a Courier Agency - Appellant irresponsible for the misgivings on the part of their employee Mr M.S. Pareek, who persuaded Navya Creations to introduce the consignment of an outsider without informing or taking permission of the competent officer of the Appellant - ack of internal control procedures at the end of the Appellant - Appellant as an authorised courier has failed to verify the details of actual exporter and its functioning at the given address - failure to comply with the obligation under Regulation 12(iv) of CIER, 2010. HELD THAT - It is found that there is no failure on the part of the Appellant under Regulation 6 (4) of CIER, 2010, as no case is made out of any violation of any instructions or public notice issued by the customs. Further, there is no allegation that the export consignments in question were not presented properly to the proper officer or to the satisfaction of the proper officer. Accordingly, the allegation and finding under Regulation 6(4) are set aside. Regulation 12 (iv) of CIER - HELD THAT - In the case of booking of consignment through Navya Creations for one Mr. Rakesh Jagid, there is no violation of the provision, as both Navya Creation and Rakesh Jagid have responded in the course of enquiry and cooperated in the matter. However, so far the booking of the 2 consignments through their ASP- Allied Aviation Private Limited for one Mr. Munshi Jogi is concerned, it is evident that the Appellant did produce the relevant KYC documents (Aadhar card) of their client, but there is lack of sufficient efforts to trace and produce the said Mr. Munshi Jogi before the customs for enquiry and investigation. Thus, there is no violation of Regulation 12 (iv) of CIER with regard to the 2 consignments booked for the consignor - Mr. Munshi Jogi. The Appellant had urged that as the consignment was booked through their ASP, they had accepted the consignment relying on their ASP. Allegation under Regulation 12(v) - only allegation is that there is delay of about 3 months in bringing details/ information to the knowledge of the customs - HELD THAT - The Appellant was in constant touch and had kept the customs informed. The apparent contravention is only due to involvement of three agencies, the Customs House, thereafter, the DRI and thereafter the SIIB. Thus, there is only few days gap in informing the particular agency but there is no deliberate keeping back of any information or giving or withholding any information whenever asked for. Accordingly, this ground is allowed and the findings of ld. Commissioner is set aside. Allegation under Regulation 12 (vi) and (vi) - HELD THAT - It is found that there is lack of control and proper administration on their ASP. Further, appellant should have immediately informed the customs on termination of their employee M.S. Pareek with his future correspondence address and contact phone numbers. Aslo the illegal activity was found by customs, there being no complicity of the appellant. The order of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs is set aside - amount of penalty under Regulation 14 of CIER is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- - appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Regulation 6(4) of Courier Import and Export Regulations (CIER), 2010. 2. Violation of Regulation 12(iv) of CIER, 2010. 3. Violation of Regulation 12(v) of CIER, 2010. 4. Violation of Regulation 12(vi) of CIER, 2010. 5. Violation of Regulation 12(vii) of CIER, 2010. 6. Penalty and forfeiture of security deposit. Summary: 1. Violation of Regulation 6(4) of CIER, 2010: The Tribunal found no failure on the part of the Appellant under Regulation 6(4) of CIER, 2010. There was no allegation that the export consignments were not presented properly to the proper officer or to the satisfaction of the proper officer. Thus, the allegation and finding under Regulation 6(4) were set aside. 2. Violation of Regulation 12(iv) of CIER, 2010: The Tribunal found no violation of Regulation 12(iv) concerning the consignment booked through Navya Creations for Mr. Rakesh Jagid, as both Navya Creation and Rakesh Jagid cooperated in the matter. However, regarding the consignments booked through ASP- Allied Aviation Private Limited for Mr. Munshi Jogi, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant had collected sufficient KYC documents but lacked sufficient efforts to trace and produce Mr. Munshi Jogi before customs. Thus, the findings of the learned Commissioner under Regulation 12(iv) were set aside. 3. Violation of Regulation 12(v) of CIER, 2010: The Tribunal found that the Appellant was in constant touch with customs and had kept them informed. The apparent contravention was due to the involvement of three agencies (Customs House, DRI, and SIIB), leading to a few days' gap in informing the particular agency. Thus, there was no deliberate withholding of information. The findings under Regulation 12(v) were set aside. 4. Violation of Regulation 12(vi) of CIER, 2010: The Tribunal found no apparent violation of Regulation 12(vi). The learned Commissioner observed that the Appellant had mentioned that customs examined the consignment but did not specify the presence of bulk medicines. The Tribunal held that there was no requirement to mention that customs put the consignment on hold. There was no complaint from the client about not receiving proper or timely information. Thus, the findings under Regulation 12(vi) were set aside. 5. Violation of Regulation 12(vii) of CIER, 2010: The Tribunal found no specific allegation or failure on the part of the Appellant to keep the customs department informed of any developments. There was no allegation of withholding information from customs. Thus, the findings under Regulation 12(vii) were set aside. 6. Penalty and Forfeiture of Security Deposit: The Tribunal noted a lack of control and proper administration on the Appellant's ASP and that the Appellant should have immediately informed customs about the termination of their employee, M.S. Pareek. However, there was no complicity of the Appellant in the illegal activity. The order of forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs was set aside, and the penalty under Regulation 14 of CIER was reduced to Rs. 20,000. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part, and the order of forfeiture of the security deposit was set aside. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000.
|
