The Customs, Excises, Service Taxes Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench while quashing the revocation of registration, forfeiture of security deposit ruled that the Authorized courier prohibited from opening and verifying contents of imported consignments.
The appellant, M/s Fle Fast Line Express Pvt. Ltd. is an authorized courier under the Regulations. These Regulations apply to assessment and clearance of imported or export goods carried by an authorized courier by air on behalf of a consignee or consignor at Customs airports. Whenever any goods are imported through courier instead of the normal procedure in which the importer or a Customs Broker files a bill of entry for the imported goods, in courier imports, the authorized courier or his agent files an electronic manifest of the imported goods prior to its arrival with the proper officer in express cargo manifest – import (ECM – I) form.
The courier packages containing the imported goods cannot be dealt with in any manner except as directed by the Commissioner of Customs and no person shall, except with the permission of the proper officer, open any packages of imported goods. The authorized courier shall present the imported goods to the proper officer for inspection, screening, examination and assessment. Thereafter, the authorized courier pays the import duty, if any, applicable on the imported goods and after clearance by the customs delivers the goods to the consignees and collects the customs duties from them.
The declared goods were “Sample Shoes‟ and every airway bill had 30 pairs totalling 450 pairs. Information was received by customs authorities that branded shoes were being imported by some importers in the guise of „sample shoes‟ in association with the appellant. So, they opened and examined the above 15 consignments of shoes of 30 pairs each and seized them under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Subsequent investigations showed that these were counterfeit goods and, therefore, they were confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 19622 for violation of intellectual property rights of the brand owner M/s. Nike.
The only fault of the appellant is that instead of receiving the KYC documents directly from the hands of the owners of M/s Legend Creations and M/s. Personal Creations, it received the documents with covering letters handed over by Balvinder Singh.
The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order and asserted that the appellant had failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correctness and completeness of the authorization handed over by the third party in respect of two importers who were not related to him and thereby contravened Regulation 12(1)(v) of the Regulations. Mens rea is not required for suspension or revocation of licence and imposition of penalty under the Regulations.
The coram headed by the President Justice Dilip Gupta found that the importers were genuine importers and they existed; the KYC documents were not fake; the Bills of Entry were filed as per the invoices; there is no evidence that the appellant was aware of the real contents of the consignments; the appellant had no authority to even open and verify the contents of the imported consignments; and there is no evidence that the appellant was aware that the goods were actually imported by Balvinder Singh and not by the importers declared in the invoices.
Therefore, the CESTAT found that the appellant has not violated Regulation 12(1)(v) and therefore, revocation of the registration and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 13(1) and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 cannot be sustained.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
