2024 (3) TMI 1057 - AT - Customs

Revocation of courier registration of appellant - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 of Courier Import Export Regulation (CIER) 2010 - mis-declaration of goods by the appellants as courier agents - violation of Regulation 12 (1) (i) (iii) (iv) (vii) and (x) and CIER 2010 - HELD THAT - There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the under valuation as being committed by the appellant with respect to the impugned import consignments. The Courier company not only processes the clearance of the goods through the customs but actually receives the goods from the overseas exporter transports them to India clears them through the customs and further delivers them to the consignee in India at his address. The Regulations regulating this process provide for licensing of couriers who only can handle this work. In such imports after the goods are brought into the country the courier has to obtain Know Your Customer (KYC) documents from the consignees and their authorization and thereafter has to file courier bills of entry (CBEs) in respect of each of the consignments. After the goods are assessed by customs the courier pays the customs duty and clears the goods and takes them to the premises of the importer and delivers them and collects the customs duty which was paid by the courier while clearing the goods. The appellant s main contention is the inquiry report dated 13.01.2021 is in favour of appellant. It has been held that the appellant has abided by all the provisions of the act and CIER Regulations. Alleged violation of Regulation 12 CIER has been ruled out. However the said report and the said order-in-original has been ignored by the order under challenge. It is observed that order dated 05.02.2021 has been discussed in the order under challenge. It has been observed therein that despite an investigation was under process with SIIB and status thereof was demand but was not produced till the time of said inquiry report dated 13.01.2021 and the said order-in-original dated 05.02.2021. Thus moot question of authenticity of authorizations and invoices especially the manipulation of dates was not before the adjudicating authority at the time of order dated 05.02.2021. the order of setting aside alleged violation of CIER by appellant was thus passed due to lack of evidence at that time. Hence in the light of subsequent evidence against appellant there are no reason to different from the findings in the impugned order under challenge (order-in-original dated 18.08.2023). Thus the appellant has violated Regulation 12 and the respective sub-regulations of CIER 2010 - the findings arrived at in the order under challenge w.r.t. each sub-clause of Regulation 12 of CIER affirmed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Mis-declaration and misclassification of imported goods.
2. Alleged connivance of the appellant with importers.
3. Violation of Courier Import Export Regulation (CIER), 2010.
4. Compliance with Know Your Customer (KYC) norms and Proof of Delivery (PoD).
5. Validity of previous inquiry report and subsequent evidence.

Summary:

1. Mis-declaration and Misclassification of Imported Goods:

The Department alleged that the appellant mis-declared the quantity and classification of imported goods, specifically iPhone parts, to evade customs duty. The goods were declared under CTH 85340000 attracting NIL BCD instead of the correct classification attracting 20% BCD. The Chartered Engineer's report confirmed that the goods were capable of being assembled into iPhones, indicating mis-declaration of description and value.

2. Alleged Connivance of the Appellant with Importers:

The investigation revealed that the appellant's employee, Gulshan, was closely associated with the beneficial importer, Anoop Kumar, and the actual recipients of the goods were different from the declared consignees. The appellant was found to have altered proof of delivery documents and failed to disclose the true nature of the importers and the goods, indicating connivance with the importers to evade customs duty.

3. Violation of Courier Import Export Regulation (CIER), 2010:

The appellant was found to have violated Regulation 12 (1) (i), (iii), (iv), (vii), and (x) of CIER, 2010. The violations included failing to exercise due diligence, providing incorrect information, and not advising consignors or consignees to comply with regulations. The appellant's actions were deemed to be against the good faith and obligations imposed by the department.

4. Compliance with Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms and Proof of Delivery (PoD):

The appellant claimed compliance with KYC norms and provided PoD documents. However, the investigation found that the PoD documents were altered, and the authorizations from consignees were obtained after the investigation began. The appellant failed to verify the correctness of the Import Export Code (IEC) and the authenticity of the importers.

5. Validity of Previous Inquiry Report and Subsequent Evidence:

The appellant relied on an earlier inquiry report dated 13.01.2021, which exonerated them. However, subsequent evidence, including counterfeit IMEI stickers and manipulated invoices, was not available during the initial inquiry. The adjudicating authority considered this new evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appellant violated CIER, 2010.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the order-in-original dated 18.08.2023, confirming the revocation of the appellant's courier registration, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The appeal was dismissed.

(Order pronounced in open court on 22/03/2024.)