9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of failure to follow regulation 13(a) have been made in the notice and therefore, he cannot place any reliance on any fact relating to failure to observe the said regulations. Furthermore, it is seen that no specific case of non-compliance, which was known to the appellant, was pointed out either in the notice or in the impugned order and therefore no allegation made for failure to observe the obligation under regulation 13(b) can be made. - However, regulation 13(c) provides for a very wide scope. The appellants were required to exercise due diligence. The fact that the weight of consignment was 22 kg and the freight was ₹ 25,000/- but the declared value was less than ₹ 3000/- should have raised suspicion. Therefore, it is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus totally valued at approx ₹ 60 Lakhs (CIF), and 10 pieces of Sony SXS Pro SBP-32GB Flash memory modules each valued at approx. ₹ 50,000/-, thus totally valued at approx. ₹ 5 Lakhs (CIF). Goods valued at ₹ 65 Lakhs were seized. After issuance of show cause notice and considering reply from the noticees including the present Appellant and hearing the parties, the Ld. Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice vide the impugned order wherein amongst other confirmation, he imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- upon the Applicant on the ground that they have failed to exercise due diligence in performing their work as an authorized courier and thus, their inaction/negligence has led to this attempt of smuggling o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act. As regards the proposal for penal action against them under Section 112 and 114AA ibid, I find that the investigation could not unearth any concrete evidence regarding their knowledge of the mis-declaration of the goods under seizure and their connivance in the attempt for evasion of duty. Therefore penal action under Section 117 of the Customs Act is found to be commensurate with their violation of the legal provisions. 3. Learned AR argued that they failed in their obligation under the provisions of Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and the Customs Act, 1962 which have rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The learned AR argued that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of import goods or of export goods; 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the appellants are a Courier Company and in ordinary course of business they do not come to know about the factual discretion (sic) of the goods or actual value of the same. They are only aware of the details as disclosed by the clients. As argued by the learned AR, it is seen that no allegation in respect of failure to follow regulation 13(a) have been made in the notice and therefore, he cannot place any reliance on any fact relating to failure to observe the said regulations. Furthermore, it is seen that no sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
