In a recent case, the Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that omission on the part of the appellant to engage the executive as an authorized person to file courier bills of entry as per Regulation 12(ii) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 cannot be reason to invoke harsh proceedings including revocation of courier license and enforcement of bond and bank guarantee executed in connection with registration/license as an authorized courier.
M/s. Pigeon International appellant is an authorized courier agent holding a courier license issued by Cochin Customs Commissionerate, thereafter, the license was extended to Bangalore Air Port.
The appellant had abetted M/s. K T Technologies, New Delhi to import mobile parts through Bengaluru Airport by mis-declaring the value, proceedings were initiated and adjudication authority as per the impugned order revoked the Courier license, and enforced the bond and bank guarantee.
In addition, a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each was imposed on the appellant under Regulation 14 of Courier Import and Export (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 and under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by said order present appeal was filed.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Appellant has not committed any illegality as alleged. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to letters dated 02.12.2021 and 03.01.2023, where the importer Ms. Kajal Thakur, proprietress of M/s. K.T. Technologies submits that due to difficulty in understanding the statement, a statement was recorded earlier to the effect that the shipment does not pertain to her.
She further confirmed that they only had imported the goods and took assistance from the appellant and others. They have paid the due amount to the overseas supplier and admitting the alleged illegality, they have agreed to pay differential duty with penalty for the release of goods.
It was submitted that though it was alleged that the G-card holder had fabricated documents, there is no admissible evidence to that effect. As per the impugned order, it is alleged that the bill of entry was filed without complying with the KYC norms.
However, as per the statement recorded from the importer Ms. Kajal Thakur, she has admitted that they had full knowledge regarding the import and they only made payment to the consignor. Moreover, accepting the said contention, the Customs authority released the goods to the importer on payment of duty and penalty as per section 28(6)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
It was submitted that there was a gross mis-declaration in the classification, description, quantity, duty etc. in the bills of entries filed for the said consignments, which were intercepted. The shipments were not only filed without proper KYC verifications and authorization of the importer but were delivered to Mr Elias, which is in total violation of the extant legal provisions and the KYC norms.
Section 28(6)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 reads “that the duty with interest and penalty has been paid in full, then, the proceedings in respect of such person or other persons to whom the notice is employed under subsection (1) or sub-section (4), shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sections 135, 135A and 140 be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein.
It was evident that without prejudice to the provisions of sections 135, 135A and 140 of the Customs Act, 1962, proceedings are to be conclusive in respect of such person or other persons to whom the notice is served. There is no power vested in adjudication authority to accept the closure of the case under Section 28(6) and not to grant any “immunity” to other persons to whom notice is issued.
As per the evidence, the proceedings initiated against the appellant are based on the initial statement recorded from the importer Ms. Kajal Thakur, proprietress of M/s. K.T. Technologies where she has stated that; she was not aware of the import; there existed no GSTIN or IEC in her name, etc.
A two-member bench of Mr P.A. Augustian, Member (Judicial) and Mr Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) found that there was an omission on the part of the appellant to engage the executive M. Elias as an authorized person to file courier bills of entry as per Regulation 12(ii) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010.
“Considering the situation that prevailed during the post-covid period, the appellant might have failed to comply with said provision and same cannot be reason to invoke harsh proceedings including revocation of courier license and enforcement of bond and bank guarantee executed in connection with registration/license as an authorized courier.”, the CESTAT viewed.
The Tribunal penalty imposed on the appellant under Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Further, the Penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is set aside. Mr. Baby M.A., Advocate Appeared for Appellant and Mr. Rajesh Shastry, Authorized Representative for Respondent
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
