9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs instead of revoking licence had taken a lenient view and forfeited the bond amount, cannot be held either as being without authority or being disproportionate to prove infraction or not being in consonance with the Courier Regulations. Writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs. - Petitioner shall pay costs of ₹ 10,000/- to respondent - Decided against the petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 17539 of 2015 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 29-4-2015 - Aravind Kumar, J. Shri Shivadass. G., Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Petitioner is seeking for quashing of order dated 9-3-2015, Annexure-A passed by Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru, whereunder representation filed by petitioner requesting to modify the order in original dated 31-7-2014, Annexure - B, passed by Commissioner of Customs has ordered to forfeit the security furnished by petitioner in terms of Regulation 14(1) of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (for short Courier Regulations ) by rejecting the representation of petitioner. 2. Petitioner herein is a holder of Authorized Courier Registration issued un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the submissions of Esquire Express that they had kept the department informed and, therefore, they were under a bona fide belief that the registration was granted after taking note of the fact that they would be outsourcing part of their activities, is incorrect. Consequently, there was also no cause for them to assume that outsourcing had the tacit approval of the department. 12.3 Coming to the second set of submissions made on 27-6-2014, it is admitted by Esquire Express that the activity of door to door delivery had been outsourced in two of the three cases. They have, accordingly, sought ex-post facto approval in these cases. In the third case, as per the Flow Chart-Ill, it is the Universal who have outsourced the activity relating to filing of CBE-I at Bangalore to Esquire and, as such Esquire need not obtain any permission. 1 find merit in this submission of the Authorized Courier inasmuch as the activity which has been outsourced in the third case is by Universal to Esquire and not vice-versa. 12.4 As regards the contention raised in the latest submission dated 23-7-2014, I am afraid the same is sans any merits whatsoever for the following reasons. Regulation 5 spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms agreed to be adhered to as prescribed in the conditions of bond executed by it. As noticed by the Commissioner of Customs this default of petitioner had continued for a period of three (3) years. However, instead of revoking the Courier Registration for said violation and taking a sympathetic view, Commissioner of Customs forfeited the security furnished by petitioner under the bond executed by it and did not revoke the registration issued to petitioner by order dated 31-7-2014, Annexure-B. 5. Assailing the said order petitioner pursued its grievance before Chief Commissioner of Customs by submitting a representation, who on reappreciation of facts and contentions raised was of the view that forfeiture of security amount was inconsonance with the Courier Regulations and act of petitioner being in contravention of Regulation 13(j), it was held by respondent that order passed by Commissioner of Customs forfeiting the security is proper and there being no infirmity in the said order, representation of petitioner came to be rejected. 6. Assailing said order petitioner is before this Court contending inter alia that Regulation 14(1) of Courier Regulations stipulates that regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etic view and instead of revoking the license granted to him has refrained from doing so and has only forfeited the amount and as such, there is no infirmity in the order passed by Commissioner and as such, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case records and also bestowing my careful attention to the contentions raised at the bar it requires to be noticed that petitioner has obtained Courier Registration as per Courier Regulations on 26-7-2011 and has been carrying on its operations across the globe. Petitioner has been in the business of private cargo by air and sea freight across the world. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has two decades of experience in private round the clock freight forwarding to all types of industries across the globe. Petitioner knowing fully well the manner, method and mode in which it requires to operate in India, has applied for grant of registration under the provisions of Courier Regulations to operate at Bengaluru Airport Cargo Complex, Devanahalli, Bengaluru for import and exports of goods through courier mode. On an inspection being conducted and off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that contention of petitioner that they had kept the department informed about outsourcing was incorrect and the alleged bona fide belief of petitioner that registration was granted after taking note of said fact namely petitioner would be outsourcing a part of its acitvity, is factually incorrect. Said finding is based on proper appreciation of facts and there is no infirmity, whatsoever. 11. It is also not in dispute that petitioner sought ex-post facto approval of outsourcing and submission made by petitioner that it is M/s. Universal Courier Pvt. Ltd., who have outsourced the activity relating to filing of CBE-1 at Bengaluru through petitioner and as such, petitioner was not under obligation to obtain permission, came to be accepted. On this amongst other grounds as indicated in the order dated 31-7-2014, Annexure - B, the registration granted to petitioner was not revoked but the security furnished by petitioner was forfeited in terms of Regulation 14(1) of the Courier Regulations. Regulation 14(1) of Courier Regulations reads as under : 14. Deregistration :- (1) The Commissioner of Customs may revoke the registration of an Authorised Courier and also order forfeiture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that Department had already been intimated of petitioner s intention to expand its business at Hong Kong and Singapore and as such, it was awaiting further instructions from the Department, to stave off its obligation of obtaining written permission as contemplated under Regulation 13(j). At the cost of repetition, it requires to be noticed that as on the date of submitting communication dated 15-6-2011 to petitioner it had not entered into contract with M/s. ADP Express Pvt. Ltd. and said contract came into existence only on 3-1-2012 and as such, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that respondent had been made aware of such contract. Contention raised in this regard stands rejected. 13. In view of the fact that Commissioner of Customs instead of revoking licence had taken a lenient view and forfeited the bond amount, cannot be held either as being without authority or being disproportionate to prove infraction or not being in consonance with the Courier Regulations for reasons more than one: Firstly, Regulation 14(1)(b) would clearly indicate that when there is infraction or violation of Courier Regulation, authority would be entitled to forfeit the bond amount. Secondl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
