Case law
Judgments from CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, each summarised and linked to the provisions it applies.
Judgments powered by Indian Kanoon.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 21 Aug 2023
Ups Jetair Express Pvt Ltd vs Cc Air Cargo Ch - Vii
Legal principle
Revocation of an authorized courier's registration cannot be sustained where the SCN establishes no overt act or knowledge of the company itself and the misconduct is that of a lone employee, but failure to obtain consignee authorization under Regulation 13(a) still attracts a proportionate forfeiture of the security deposit.
Court decision
The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the appellant's registration as authorized courier, holding the order of revocation unsustainable, but modified the impugned order to direct forfeiture of the security deposit reduced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.5,00,000/-, as the appellant had failed to obtain authorization from the importer. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential reliefs, in favour of the appellant only to the extent of setting aside revocation and reducing the forfeiture.
Facts
DRI, on specific intelligence, intercepted 58 courier parcels arriving from Singapore on 18.01.2013 through courier terminal at Chennai Airport, of which 34 were booked through UPS Jet Air Express Pvt Ltd. Two consignments declared as booklets, cables and printing sheets (840 SGD) actually contained Sony HD video cameras, 203 Titan branded watches and 10.475 kg of 22 carat gold jewellery concealed in an audio receiver, valued at Rs.3,32,51,885, with no bill of entry filed. The appellant's employee, Naveen Kumar, in his Section 108 statement admitted clearing such consignments for his friend Kannan by falsely declaring packages as documents, altering the manifest and removing airway bills. A show cause notice dated 14.10.2013 under Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 led to revocation of the appellant's registration as authorized courier and forfeiture of its Rs.10 lakhs security deposit, upheld by the Chief Commissioner on 23.07.2014. Separately, a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs under Section 112(a) Customs Act, 1962 was imposed by Order No.721/2015 dated 27.08.2015, which the appellant did not appeal and has paid.
Key provisions
- Section 112(a), Customs Act, 1962 — Penalty for improper importation of goods
- Regulation 14, Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 — Deregistration
- Section 111(d), Customs Act, 1962 — Confiscation of improperly imported goods etc
- Section 108, Customs Act, 1962 — Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents
- Regulation 13, Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 — Obligations of Authorised Courier