9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to back in close time proximity. There is no allegation that the Bill of Entries were filed in staggered manner to avoid spotting of multiple Bill of Entries in the system. All these multiple Bill of Entries simultaneously residing in the system and were open to Assessing Officer for satisfying himself. The appellant has exercised reasonable and requisite due diligence while ascertaining and even while furnishing the information with the proper officer in reference to filing the impugned three courier EWBs and thus has abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules regulations and orders issued thereunder. The compliance of 12(1)(x) CIER by appellant has already been held by Commissioner Customs in an order dated 25.11.2020 - even Regulation 12(i)(v) and 12(i) (x) have not be violated by the appellant. The findings against the appellant in the order under challenge are therefore incorrect. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50179/2021 - FINAL ORDER No. 52067/2021 - Dated:- 13-12-2021 - MRS RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri V S Negi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms passed the impugned order bearing No. 101.2020 dated 10.11.2020. Allegation of breach of Regulation12(1)(i), 12(1)(iii), 12(1)(iv) 12(1)(vii) were dropped whereas breach of Regulation 121)(v) and 12(1)(x) were confirmed. Suspension of transaction under Form J was revoked on censure of warning and penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (imposed on on under Reg 14 of CIER, 2010 on the ground that the Courier is supposed to thoroughly examine/ understand the business model of clients with whom they have regular business to avoid any violation of law by them. Impugned order has preceded the Order in Original No. 63/SKM/ADC/ACE/2020 dated 25.11.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs, ACC Export, Delhi. Allegation against the importer has been confirmed. However, the proceedings against the appellant as Regd courier has been dropped holding that the appellant or its Director (s) had not committed any violation consciously with awareness of the illegal act of the importer and hence not liable to penalty proposed under show cause notice. Appellant is aggrieved by revocation of suspension under censure of warning and imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/-Accordingly, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010. The authorized courier M/s. Grand Slam Express Pvt Ltd. had filed the import documents of the consignments covered under MAWB No. 23538319665. On examination of House Airway Bills No. 35365, 35370 and 35371 covered under MAWB No. 23538319665, the goods were found to be mis declared in terms of value/ description. The package of goods were also found bearing price tags/ stickers which were of much higher than the value declared in invoices and other import documents. It was observed that the subject goods were not classified under CTSH (Customs Tariff Sub Heading 9804. The authorized courier had no interference with the individual customers and M/s. Grand Slam had filed CBE on behalf of the importer M/s. Cart2 India Online Retails Pvt Ltd., in this case, after taking proper authorization from the importer. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, I observe and hold as follows: Foremost it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions which reads as follows: 12. Obligations of Authorised Courier. (1) An Authorised Courier shall - (i) obtain an authorisation, from each of the consignees or consignors of the imported go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Clearance of export goods, from a consignor or consignee who is entitled to such information; (vii) not withhold any information relating to assessment and clearance of imported goods or of export goods, from the Assessing Officer; (viii) not attempt to influence the conduct of any officer of Customs in any matter pending before such officer or his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation, duress or offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or other thing or value; (ix) maintain records and accounts in such form and manner as may be directed from time to time by an Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner or Customs for a period of five years and submit them for inspection to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or an officer authorised by him, wherever required; and (x) abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations, notifications and orders issued thereunder. To appreciate the above provision, the relevant facts of the present, as observed are as follows: As a matter of fact proceedings against the appellant under Customs Act, 1962 have been dropped holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
