9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 962 - AT - CustomsRevocation of licensed courier - no documents pertaining to KYCs (Know Your Customers) and POD (proof of delivery) were found - violation of Rule 12 (iv) of Regulation of CIER, 2010 - Adherence to the provisions laid in the Notification No.07/98-Customs (NT) dated 9.11.1998 or not - HELD THAT - The respondent has failed to verify the correctness of IEC code and even identity of its clients. The respondent was aware of the use of same Aadhaar Number for all BOEs still the Authorized Courier nor to verify the said Aadhaar Number or did not verify the antecedent, correctness of Import Export Code (IEC) number, identity of its client. Further, the respondent during the time of uploading of the Bill of Entry failed to take note that the data entered was not correct - The respondent did not even bother to inform the said mistake to the Customs department, despite that KYC details filed by him in the Bills of Entry was not the same as was reflected in those Bills of Entry. Accordingly, the respondent has contravened the provisions of Regulation 12(1) (v) of CIER.2010. It is also observed that to ascertain as to whether the imported goods indeed reached the declared importers, a verification of genuineness of the PODs (Proof of Deliveries), submitted by the authorized courier and KYC was carried out by the Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Export), New Delhi through the jurisdictional Commissionerate(s) - Failure of delivery of the consignment to the consignee or denial of receipt of the consignment by the consignee that the addresses were found bogus during verification of genuineness of the PODs, proves that the imported goods were never destined to the consignees named in the BOEs and have been intentionally diverted. Respondent gave no information about the said mistake to the department nor ever took the plea that it was happening due to software error. From said statements above, it becomes clear that software was so designed under the instructions of respondent. GSTIN field showing Aadhaar number was directed by the respondent himself to be kept constant while software was developed. The edit option was with the respondent. He has failed to upload the correct edited information. Thus respondent cannot be allowed to take shelter of plea of software error . Thus, the alleged/impugned act was not merely lack of due diligence but was intentional misconduct. The verification report sufficiently established the fact that the respondent has imported consignments in the name of consignees who were not even aware of the fact that their identity has been misused by the respondent i.e. courier company for import purpose. The report is held cogent evidence to show that authorized courier has failed to verify the correctness of IEC code and even identity of its clients. As observed above, it was done intentionally by the respondent, hence is wrongly held to be the mere act of negligence. There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the above said Regulations have been violated by the respondent. The violation invite revocation of courier licence as per Regulation 11. But the original adjudicating authority despite acknowledging the alleged violations has merely imposed penalty. Since the alleged act is proved to be intentional act of the respondent, mere imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) is disproportionate punishment - the prayer made by the appellant-department is accepted for revocation of courier registration of the respondent for committing intentional fraud while importing several goods in the name of those being gifts from Non Resident Indian (NRI) to their family member residing in India, which otherwise were not imported by them nor were meant for them. The findings under challenge are hereby set aside and the appeal of Department is hereby allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Misuse of Aadhaar number and KYC details. 2. Verification of Proof of Delivery (POD) and addresses. 3. Violations of CIER Regulations, 2010. 4. Proportionality of penalty imposed. Summary: 1. Misuse of Aadhaar number and KYC details: The respondent, M/s. Air Logix Solutions, used the same Aadhaar number (233962343459) 22,433 times for different Bills of Entry (BOEs) from November 2017 to March 2018. The KYC details filed in the BOEs were found to be fake. The respondent claimed it was a software mistake, but evidence showed that the same Aadhaar number was intentionally used, and the KYC details were not properly maintained. The Tribunal held that the respondent contravened Regulation 12(1)(v) of CIER, 2010. 2. Verification of Proof of Delivery (POD) and addresses: Verification of the PODs by the jurisdictional Commissionerate revealed that most addresses were fictitious, and the consignments were bogus. The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to verify the correctness of the IEC code and the identity of its clients, intentionally misusing the IDs of consignees. The Tribunal held that the respondent violated Regulation 12(1)(iv) of CIER, 2010. 3. Violations of CIER Regulations, 2010: The Tribunal observed that the respondent facilitated imports by mis-declaring the names of consignees and consignors and using the same GSTIN for all BOEs. The respondent knowingly violated Regulations 12(1)(iv), 12(1)(v), and 12(1)(x) of CIER, 2010, by failing to verify the antecedents and correctness of the information submitted to the customs authorities. 4. Proportionality of penalty imposed: The original adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent but did not revoke the courier's registration. The Tribunal found this penalty to be highly disproportionate given the intentional misconduct. The Tribunal accepted the department's appeal, set aside the original order, and revoked the respondent's courier registration for committing intentional fraud. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the department's appeal, set aside the original adjudicating authority's findings, and revoked the respondent's courier registration for intentional fraud and violations of CIER Regulations, 2010. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 was deemed insufficient, and the respondent's actions were found to be intentional misconduct rather than mere negligence.
|
