The Delhi High Court confirmed the penalty for issuance of unauthorised Airway Bills on Red Sandalwood.
The proceedings relate to the consignments of goods which were found to be prohibited goods (Red Sandalwood/Red Sanders). The appellant, Manish Gupta claimed that it is a consolidator for two courier companies, namely, M/s. Fedex and M/s. Overseas Courier Services (OCS).
Admittedly, the said consignments had been accepted by the appellant and it had issued the Airway Bills. According to the appellant, one of the consignments was forwarded by another courier agency namely, M/s. Shuttle Express, New Delhi (which was also one of the noticees before the Adjudicating Authority). The other consignments were received from two individuals.
The Adjudicating Authority did not accept the statement of Manish Gupta that the two individuals had booked the consignments personally at the appellant’s office and noted that there was nothing on record which could substantiate the same.
Further, the AFRRO (Assistant Foreigners Regional Assistance Office) as well as the Intelligence Bureau had verified that the two individuals were not present in India on the given dates. Thus, it was not possible for them to book the consignment on those dates. In addition, the Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant did not have the authority to accept bookings on behalf of the courier companies.
In the given circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty of ₹15 lakhs under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act.
The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Tribunal are unreasoned and non-speaking orders and that the question of law that arises in the present case is that whether the said orders are unreasoned or not.
The Coram consisting of Justice VibhuBakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was remiss as he had not made proper enquiry. The Tribunal had also observed that the appellant was aware of the prohibited goods and accordingly dismissed the appeals. It is clear from the impugned order that the Tribunal had found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
