9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, the Authorized Courier is warned to be careful in performing their duties, in future. (b) I order for forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees Ten Lakhs only) furnished by them. (c) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under the provisions of Regulation 14 of CIER, 2010". 2. When this appeal was listed on 11th May, 2023, 28th June 2023, 9th August 2023, 4th October 2023, 4th December 2023, 30th January 2024, 27th March 2024 and 23rd July 2024, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. On 23rd July 2024, the department was requested to serve the appellant. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue has placed on record a letter from the Assistant Commissioner stating that the order could not be served as the appellant was not available at the declared addresses and therefore it was forwarded to them on their registered email ID, but no response has been received. Thereafter, this matter was listed on 11.12.2024, but nobody appeared for the appellant. 3. In Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1201 (S.C.) , the Supreme Court held that if the appellant does not appear, this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horised Courier holding registration issued under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations CIER, 1998. This license was subsequently renewed under CIER, 1998 and under CIER, 2010 and is valid till 7 April 2029. 6. An offence report in the form of two separate show cause notices SCN issued by the department under the Customs Act were received by the Commissioner on 24.10.2019. These SCNs showed that under two Bills of Entry filed by the appellant, „Rifle Scopes and rings' were imported whose import was prohibited under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as under the Arms Act, 1959. 7. The first of these two was Bill of Entry no. CBEXII DEL 2018-2019 2509 14110 covered by Airway Bill no. 652104828 and it filed on by the appellant on behalf of Shri Sangtiba Imchen, 8, Dua House, 86 A/2, 3rd Floor Lane 3, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The goods were declared as „Paintball scope and the declared price was US$ 60 and they were exported from China and arrived on 24.9.2018. Summons issued to Shri Sangtiba Imchen were returned by the postal authorities with remarks „incomplete address'. The goods were examined on 25.10.2018 in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence reports, an SCN dated 16.12.2019 was issued to the appellant under CIER calling upon it to explain why the licence should not be revoked, why the security deposit should not be forfeited and why a penalty should not be imposed on it. For this purpose, Shri Zamir Ahmed, Assistant Commissioner was appointed as the inquiry officer. 16. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 11.2.2020 in which he said that the appellant had failed to fulfill its obligations under Regulations 12(iii), (iv) and (v) of CIER, 2010 by not following the due procedure and hence was liable to action under Regulations 13(1) and 14 of CIER, 2010. 17. The appellant resisted the proposals in the SCN in it's reply dated 11.3.2020 and during the personal hearing held on 23.6.2020. Thereafter, the Commissioner passed the impugned order. 18. The grounds on which the impugned order is challenged, Revenue's submissions on them and our findings are as follows: Violation of principles of natural justice 19. The submission in this appeal is that the order was passed violating principles of natural justice because it was passed during the Covid pandemic and also because the Commissioner had recorded sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have provided a contact number which is contrary to the findings in the impugned order. It is not indicated even in this appeal as to what was the contact number of Shri Imchen which the appellant had provided to the officers. 26. It must be pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the Customs Brokers who help clear the consignments and the Couriers. The Customs Broker files the Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer and the importer pays the duty and after the goods are cleared from the Customs, the role of the Customs Broker ends and the importer arranges to transport the goods to his place. Courier, on the other hand, is a door to door service. The courier company not only files the Bill of Entry but also pays the duty, clears the goods and delivers them at the address of the importer consignee and collects the dues including the duty paid on the goods. Therefore, it is impossible for the courier company to NOT know the correct address and contact details of the consignee. Further, since the courier company has to first pay the duty out of its funds and it only gets reimbursed after delivery, it is a universal practice for the courier company to contact ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the matter to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs; (iv) verify the antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) Number, identity of his client and the functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; (v) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods; ......... 33. None of these regulations talk about abetment. These submissions deserve to the dismissed. Prior authorisation is needed only in case the duty exceeds Rs. 1 lakh 34. In the appeal, it is submitted that prior authorisation of the consignee is required only if the value of the consignment exceeds Rs. 1 lakh and in other cases, i.e., in consignments of low value, authorisation can be obtained at the time of delivery. 35. We find that the requirement of authorisation is under Regulation 12(1)(i) and the proviso thereto carves out an exception to consignments of low value. However, in the impugned order, the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
