9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said officers. All these go to show that the officers have discharged their duty and the goods have been cleared after due examination. It is not clear then how the mis-declared item could be detected at the TNT hub of the courier company much away from the custom area. Different standards have been followed by the Original Authority in examining the charge of abetment - one for the customs officers the other for courier company and its employee. On the one hand he held that the officers discharged their duty though it is clear that if the examination has been done before clearance as recorded by the Original Authority, the mis-declaration could not have escaped detection. However, for such mis-declaration the courier company has been found liable for penalty. It is apparent that while appreciating the factual evidence, the Original Authority did not follow consistency and arrived at different conclusions on same set of facts. I find that while the statements given by the officers have been accepted as truth, the statement given by the employee of courier company has been discounted selectively, at least w.r.t. the fact of examination of cargo before clearance. Charge o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined from each consignee; clause (iii) deals with advice to be given to the consignee to comply with provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations; clause (iv) deals with verification of antecedents, correctness of identity of the clients and functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliabling independent, authentic document, data or information. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants submitted mainly on the following grounds : (a) the main appellant is an established reputed courier company known internationally and have been following the provisions of Customs Act and the Courier Regulations deligently ; (b) the parcel which has come from Hong Kong was to have been delivered through the main appellant in terms of their arrangement with Hong Kong Courier company. Since the value declared in the document relevant to the parcel at the consignor's end is only U.S. $ 120, in terms of proviso to clause (i) of Regulation 12 (1) for low value dutiable consignment authorization of the consignee may be obtained at the time of delivery of consignment , (c) Regulation 5 deals with clearance of imported goods. It has been specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction against the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. Penalty under Section 112 (a) was imposed on both the appellants. Section 112 (a) relevant to present appeal, states : Section 112 - Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abats the doing or omission of such an act, In the present case the courier company acted in their capacity and there is nothing on record to indicate that they had any prior knowledge of the possible mis-declaration in the parcels. Regarding failure to discharge their obligations under Regulation 12, I find it is relevant to note that proviso to Regulation 12 (1) (i) makes it clear that the rigour of obtaining authorization for clearance of import goods has been relaxed in respect of low value dutiable consignments. Regulation 3 (ga) states low value dutiable consignments means an import consignment other than documents, gifts and samples of an invoice value not exceeding ₹ 1 lakh. In the present case the invoice value declared is U.S. $ 120, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and also no charge of any pecuniary benefits accruing to the said officers. All these go to show that the officers have discharged their duty and the goods have been cleared after due examination. It is not clear then how the mis-declared item could be detected at the TNT hub of the courier company much away from the custom area. The Original Authority discounted the role of officers on the ground that the way bills were not tallied with the consignment at the time of examination in the TNT hub. However, he held the charge of abetment proved against the courier company only on the ground that they have failed in certain of their obligations under Regulation 12. Such failure resulted in abetment of improper imports. I find such conclusion is legally unsustainable as is evident from the facts of the case. The courier company acted based on the documents received by them. They have no means to know the contends of the parcel to be other than declared in the documents. If they have such knowledge a clear case of abetment could stand. Regarding verifying the consignee, if the import document declares the value as U.S. $ 120 the question of taking prior authorization from the consign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
