Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 17 Jun 2026

Lynx Express Pvt Ltd vs Cc (C S I Airport) Mumbai

Legal principle

A penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed on an authorised courier agent where the show cause notice alleges only a failure to comply with Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, and makes no allegation of abetment, particularly when proceedings under those Regulations have already been dropped.

Court decision

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 112(a) was not imposable on the appellant, because the sole allegation in the show cause notice was a Regulation 13 failure with no allegation of abetment, and because the proceedings under the Courier Regulations had already been dropped following the Bombay High Court order. The impugned order imposing the Rs. 20,00,000/- penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Facts

Lynx Express Pvt. Ltd., an authorised courier agent holding a licence, filed CBEI-IV Bill of Entry No. 016933 dated 20.06.2014 for clearance of consignments that arrived from Dammam by Saudi Airlines Flight SV-968 on 17.06.2014. During screening, Courier Cell Officers found cut pieces of gold bars concealed in soap bars (including Dettol soap bars) under three HAWBs, and on examination of various other consignments, gold totalling 19.15126 kgs. was seized; a search of the appellant's office on 18.06.2014 revealed nothing incriminating. The appellant's licence was suspended on 26.06.2014 pending investigation, and a show cause notice dated 12.12.2014 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (APSC). The Principal Commissioner, Airport Special Cargo, Mumbai-III, confirmed a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, by Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2023.

Key provisions