9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 78 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty and Revocation of Courier license - Allegation of abetting in mis-declaration of value of imported goods - Importation of mobile parts - G-card holder had fabricated documents - duty - Interest - Penalty imposed under Regulation 14 of Courier Import and Export (Electronic Declaration and processing) Regulations 2010 and u/s 117 of the Customs Act 1962 - bill of entry filed without complying with the KYC norms - violation of the Regulation 12 - HELD THAT - There was omission on the part of appellant to engage the executive Shri M. Elias as authorized person to file courier bills of entry as per Regulation 12(ii) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations 2010. However considering the situation that prevailed during post-covid period the appellant might have failed to comply with said provision and same cannot be reason to invoke harsh proceedings including revocation of courier license and enforcement of bond and bank guarantee executed in connection with registration/license as an authorized courier. We find that for such venial omission appropriate penalty under the provisions of Regulation 12(ii) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations 2010 would suffice. We find that as regards the penalty under Regulation Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations 2010 considering the revocation of the Courier license since September 2023 a lenient view can be taken. Thus the penalty imposed on the appellant under Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations 2010 is reduced to Rs. 25, 000/-. In the result the impugned order is modified and appeal is partially allowed by setting aside revocation of Courier License and enforcement of Bond and Bank Guarantee executed in connection with the Registration/Issue of Courier License. In view of the discussion at Para 9 (supra) penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 117 of the Customs Act 1962 is set aside. The penalty imposed on the appellant under Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations 2010 is reduced to Rs. 25, 000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Courier License and Enforcement of Bond and Bank Guarantee. 2. Imposition of Penalty under Regulation 14 of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010. 3. Imposition of Penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Alleged Violations of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010. Summary: 1. Revocation of Courier License and Enforcement of Bond and Bank Guarantee: The appellant, M/s. Pigeon International, faced allegations of abetting M/s. K T Technologies in importing mobile parts by mis-declaring their value. Consequently, the adjudication authority revoked the courier license and enforced the bond and bank guarantee. However, the Tribunal found that the proceedings u/s 28(6)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were set aside, and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable. The Tribunal concluded that the revocation of the courier license and enforcement of the bond and bank guarantee were too harsh, considering the post-COVID situation and the appellant's venial omission. 2. Imposition of Penalty under Regulation 14 of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010: The adjudication authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant under Regulation 14. The Tribunal, considering the revocation of the courier license since September 2023, took a lenient view and reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's omission to engage an authorized person for filing courier bills of entry was a venial omission, not warranting harsh proceedings. 3. Imposition of Penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962: The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the proceedings against the importer were already dropped by invoking Section 28(6)(1). The Tribunal noted that the Customs Broker is only a facilitator of customs transactions and cannot be penalized for omissions or commissions of the importer/exporter in the absence of mens-rea. 4. Alleged Violations of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010: - Regulation 12(i): The Tribunal found that the allegation regarding the appellant not receiving authorization for filing courier bills of entry was unsustainable. The customs authority had accepted the importer's letter and released the goods after adjudication. - Regulation 12(ii): The Tribunal upheld the violation, noting that the appellant appointed Shri M. Elias as an executive without authorization as a customs broker under section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. - Regulation 12(iii): The Tribunal found no admissible evidence of subletting the license and concluded that appointing Shri M. Elias during the COVID period was not subletting. - Regulation 12(iv), (v) & (vi): The Tribunal noted that the customs authority initially alleged fraud using a dummy importer but later accepted the importer's letter and released the goods. There was no import of prohibited/restricted goods, and the appellant was unaware of any undervaluation. Conclusion: The Tribunal modified the impugned order, setting aside the revocation of the courier license and enforcement of the bond and bank guarantee. The penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside, and the penalty under Regulation 14 was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal was partially allowed, emphasizing the absence of mens-rea and the appellant's role as a facilitator of customs transactions.
|
