Legal principle

A person whose principal business is customs clearance, with no interface with customers or role in door-to-door delivery, is not an 'Authorized Courier', and the permission to outsource non-core activities cannot be used to enable a customs clearance agent to masquerade as a courier.

Court decision

The Court found no infirmity in the order dated 27.01.2017 revoking the petitioner's Authorized Courier license (with forfeiture of ₹10,00,000 security and ₹50,000 penalty) or in the appellate order dated 15.09.2017, and dismissed the writ petition against the Department.

Facts

Future Express, a sole proprietorship of Surender Kumar Sharma, held an Authorized Courier License (No. DEL/POL/COUR/12/2014) issued on 05.11.2014 under the Courier Regulations of 1998 and 2010. An audit/inspection reported that the petitioner appeared to be doing only customs clearance work while most other operations and the delivery system were controlled by M/s Budget Courier Private Limited under MoUs between them. Following a show cause notice cum suspension order dated 18.02.2016 and an inquiry, the Commissioner of Customs (General) revoked the license on 27.01.2017, forfeited the security of ₹10,00,000 and imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 under Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations. The Chief Commissioner of Customs dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 15.09.2017, and the petitioner challenged both orders in writ jurisdiction.

Key provisions

• Regulation 3(1)(b), Courier Imports And Exports (Electronic Declaration And Processing) Regulations, 2010 — Definitions
• Regulation 14, Courier Imports And Exports (Electronic Declaration And Processing) Regulations, 2010 — Penalty
• Regulation 3(a), Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 — Definitions