9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir India Flight No.AI 343 from Singapore to Chennai for onward distribution by the Petitioner. To undertake the customs clearance of these import consignments, their employee Naveen Kumar was present at the Chennai courier terminal. Upon unloading of air consignments, the flight personnel handed over (58) pieces at the user facility of courier terminal. Based on a specific intelligence, Officer of DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit obtained the house airway bill No.008865200645, dated January 18, 2013 and statement of consignee details from custodian and segregated the Petitioner's import parcels (34 nos.) from other air consignments transported by Air India flight and loaded these consignments for scanning in the presence of the concerned employee. b. Upon scanning, two cartons were identified for detailed examination. The cartons mentioned the contents as booklets, cables and accessories and printing sheets amounting to SGD 840 and the consignee details were mentioned as Gauri Nandanan in Chennai. However, on opening the cartons, cameras, radio receivers and watches were found. Since the radio receivers were unusually heavy, DRI opened the same to see packets, containing gold jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of specific intelligence that gold jewellery and other commercial goods are being smuggled from Singapore through courier parcels booked through the Petitioner Company and arrived by Flight AI 343 on 1.01.2013, the DRI officers mounted surveillance on the courier parcels arrived by the said flight and obtained the relevant house airway bill No.09865200645 dated 18.1.2013 from Shri Vijay of M/s.Esquire Express Pvt. Limited, the custodian of the courier terminal at Chennai Airport. As per the said air way bill, 58 pieces of courier parcels have been shipped by M/s.Universal Courier Express Pvt Limited, Singapore to M/s.Esquire Pvt. Limited, Chennai. b. The DRI Officers identified 58 pieces covered by the said airway bill and the same were found to be packed in cartons, packets, woven poly bags etc. Shri Vijay submitted a statement showing the courier wise break up of the said 58 pieces. The Officers based on the said statement segregated 34 pieces of courier parcels booked through M/s.UPS and scanned each of them in the presence of Shri Naveen Kumar. Then, out of the said 34 pieces, cartons with tag numbers SQ289988 and SQ289986 were taken up for detailed examination, as the declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide Order-in-Original No. 289/2014/AIR, dated 28.4.2014, held that the authorised courier has failed to observe the obligations as listed in Regulation 13 and ordered revocation of registration granted to the Petitioner in terms of Regulation 14(1) and further ordered forfeiture of Rs. 10 lakhs from the security deposit of the Petitioner under Regulation 14(1). d. As against the same, the Petitioner made a representation dated 13.6.2014 to the 1st Respondent and after giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner on 9.7.2014, the said representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.7.2014. e. The Petitioner Company has not obtained authorization in respect of 85 previous consignments and two live consignments referred to in the show cause notice as is required under Regulation 13(1) and the Petitioner has not exercised due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of information and reference to subject import clearance as required under Regulation 13(c) and not furnished complete information to the proper officer as required under Regulation 13. No details were maintained about the consignees in respect of subject 87 consignments and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot exercised due diligence as per Section 140 and therefore, it can be said that the act of omissions and commissions on the part of the Petitioner have aided the smuggling of high value electronic goods and gold jewellery valued at Rs. 3,32,51,885/- seized from the two live courier parcels that the Petitioner failed to comply with Regulations 13(a), (c), (e), (g) and (i) of the Regulations and that the 1st Respondent, considering the facts of the case, representation of the Petitioner and also the order of the 2nd Respondent, passed the impugned order in detail, rejecting the representation of the Petitioner. The learned standing counsel further contended that the impugned order has been passed for revocation of the licence of the Petitioner and forfeiture of security deposit, barring the Petitioner from doing business, as it was proved beyond doubt that the Petitioner has not carried out courier operations with due diligence and not complied with the Regulations under which the Petitioner was issued with the licence and therefore, the acts of the Respondents is legal and justifiable and further, there is an alternative and efficacious appeal remedy available to the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 13 (SC) Liberty Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, it has been held as under:- "13. Before this Court ventures into the factual and legal submissions made on either side, it has to be pointed out that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is an appealable order, in terms of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal, namely, CESTAT. The petitioner has failed to avail the said alternate remedy, available to them, under the Statute and straight away approached this Court, by way of this writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no justifiable grounds have been raised by the petitioner to justify their action in by-passing the appellate remedy. Learned counsel for the petitioner also did not venture to make any submissions as to why the petitioner should not be directed to avail the alternate remedy. His contention was that the exemption notification is clear in its terms and the respondents cannot insist upon the end-use certificate, which is not contemplated in the notification, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
