9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They have applied for and obtained registration as i authorized courier' in 2009 in terms of Regulation 10 (1) of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations 1998 [CIER, 1998], corresponding to Regulation 10 (1) of Courier Import and Export (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulation, 2010 [CIER, 2010]. The registration is valid up to 30/1/2019. Consequent upon certain guidelines issued in 2010 by the Board vide Circular No. 33 of 2010 dated 7/9/2010, the Commissioner of Customs reviewed the facilities available with the authorized courier appointed under the said Regulations to ensure proper compliance. On noticing that the appellant has not furnished bank certificate or solvency certificate worth Rs. 25,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al action. The learned Counsel submitted that as per the guidelines issued in 2010 [after their registration was approved in 2009] they have initiated the process of putting up of infrastructure facilities and branch offices in order to have a secured smooth operation of express door to door delivery of goods. The learned Counsel admitted that they are yet to complete the process as the same is capital intensive and required investment in IT infrastructure and various other office facilities. He pleaded that when it is an admitted fact that they have not filed any courier bill for clearance of import or export cargo so far, the question of their contravening any of above-mentioned Regulations do not arise. When asked specifically as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any bill for clearance of any import or export package and are yet to start their operation as "authorized courier" in terms of the registration granted. In such situation, we find forfeiture of Rs. 10,00,000/-security deposit without any contravention by the appellant is not justifiable. Such punitive action has to have a premise of violation of certain provision of law. The same is not demonstrated in the present case. Regarding revocation of registration, we find the action of the lower Authority is preemptive though aimed at enforcing certain revised guidelines for improved monitoring and better compliance of cargo movement across the border. We find that taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellant and also the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
