2021 (12) TMI 531 - AT - Customs

Revocation of suspension under censure of warning and imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- - Obligations of Authorised Courier - allegation of undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported consignments - HELD THAT - As a matter of fact proceedings against the appellant under Customs Act, 1962 have been dropped holding that no violation had been made. Breach alleged is on the basis of hyper and self serving interpretation leveled against the appellant and is contrary to establish practice followed all over the ports by all the courier which was in full knowledge of the department at all the time. It is also relevant that necessity of G Card Holder being employed as courier against as courier to F card for Customs Broker, the level of compliance by courier is brought down to the extent of procedural compliance only and not substantive compliance expected from F Card. There is no mention in the finding as to which of the information had been withheld from the department by the appellant. All 21 BEs for respective HAWBs were filed simultaneously and back to back in close time proximity. There is no allegation that the Bill of Entries were filed in staggered manner to avoid spotting of multiple Bill of Entries in the system. All these multiple Bill of Entries simultaneously residing in the system and were open to Assessing Officer for satisfying himself. The appellant has exercised reasonable and requisite due diligence while ascertaining and even while furnishing the information with the proper officer in reference to filing the impugned three courier EWBs and thus has abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules regulations and orders issued thereunder. The compliance of 12(1)(x) CIER by appellant has already been held by Commissioner Customs in an order dated 25.11.2020 - even Regulation 12(i)(v) and 12(i) (x) have not be violated by the appellant. The findings against the appellant in the order under challenge are therefore incorrect. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Allegation of mis-declaration and misclassification of imported goods, use of wrong form of Courier Bill of Entry, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962, suspension of courier activities, breach of regulations under CIER, 2010, revocation of suspension, imposition of penalty on courier, compliance obligations of authorized courier, exercise of due diligence by courier, withholding of information from the department.

Analysis:
1. Mis-declaration and Misclassification: The case involved allegations against an importer for importing goods with undervalued declarations. The appellant, a courier, was accused of using the wrong form of Courier Bill of Entry to avoid scrutiny. The goods were seized, and a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation, redetermination of value, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Suspension and Penalty: The Commissioner suspended the courier's activities under CIER, 2010, alleging breaches of various regulations. The appellant challenged this suspension, leading to an inquiry and subsequent imposition of a penalty of ?50,000 along with a warning. The appellant contested the penalty and warning, arguing that they did not consciously violate any regulations.

3. Compliance Obligations: The obligations of an authorized courier, as per Regulation 12 of CIER, 2010, were examined. The appellant's compliance with these obligations, including due diligence in submitting information to the proper officer, was a key point of contention. The appellant argued that they had fulfilled their obligations and had not withheld any information from the department.

4. Due Diligence and Compliance: The appellant maintained that they had exercised due diligence in filing the Courier Bill of Entries and had not violated the regulations. The appellant's actions were analyzed in comparison to the requirements set out for authorized couriers, emphasizing the procedural nature of the courier's obligations.

5. Judicial Findings: The Tribunal observed that the appellant had filed multiple Bill of Entries simultaneously, with no evidence of deliberate withholding of information. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had acted diligently and complied with all relevant provisions of the Act and regulations. The findings against the appellant were deemed incorrect, leading to the setting aside of the penalty and revocation of the suspension.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the lack of evidence of any violation or withholding of information. The judgment highlighted the importance of due diligence and compliance with regulatory obligations for authorized couriers, ultimately overturning the penalties imposed on the appellant.