The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), sets aside forfeiture of security deposits as the information was given to one of the agencies of Customs, that the other agency may have felt that they did not get the information in time.
The allegation, M/s FedEx Express Transportation & Supply Chain Services India Private Ltd, made against the appellant is for the violation of the Regulation 12(v) of Courier Import and Export Regulations (CIER), 2010 which provides- the authorised courier shall exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer, with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods.
It is pertinent to mention that Navya Creations are the regular clients of the Appellant and Appellants maintain their proper KYC records. As the said consignment was not marked for examination either by the Customs, the Appellant presented the consignment for x-ray screening.
The Appellant sent an email to Navya Creation informing about the suspected stuffing in the goods which appears to be a case of mis-declaration. In reply, on the same day by email, Navya Creation informed that actually this was not their consignment but this consignment was booked through them at the request of one of the staff of FedEx, namely Mahendra Singh Pareek.
The Commissioner observed that although FedEx correctly informed about the suspicious nature of the consignment, but grossly failed to convey the complete information to the proper officer of Customs, regarding the fraudulent booking aspect and associated communication.
The Counsel for the appellant stated that the Commissioner have recorded the findings that the Appellant have immediately sent emails to their client Navya Creation, and also to their ASP – Allied Aviation and they also came to know on the same day regarding the booking of consignment by Navya Creation, as informed by their employee.
Setting aside the order of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs the Coram consisting of Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member observed that “There may be a delay of few days which is wholly unintentional. Though, the information was given to one of the agencies of Customs, that the other agency may have felt that they did not get the information in time. Thus, there is no deliberate violation of the provisions of the Regulation 12(v) of CIER, 2010.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
