Penalty on Courier Agent u/s 114 Unsustainable as Goods Intercepted before Filing Clearance Documents: CESTAT Grants Relief of ₹20 Lakh [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a penalty of ₹20 lakh holding that no liability can be fastened on a courier agent in the absence of evidence establishing knowledge or involvement in the alleged import violation.

The appellant Speed Max Logistics, a registered courier agent under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 (CIER), had filed an Import Manifest for certain consignments. Before the submission of Bills of Entry or any other document for clearance purposes the said consignment was detained by DRI.

Further, It was found out upon investigation that the said goods are of Pakistani origin. As such, there were charges against both the importer and the appellant and a fine amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed upon the latter under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant contended that it had merely filed the Import Manifest based on documents received from the exporter and had no knowledge regarding the contents or origin of the goods. It was further argued that since the consignments were intercepted before filing clearance documents no active role could be attributed to the appellant.

Additionally, no proceedings were initiated under CIER, 2010 indicating absence of any regulatory breach or mala fide intent.However, the Department of Finance stated that the appellant, as the courier service provider, would be liable to penalties owing to the prohibited nature of the cargo.

The Tribunal observed that apart from filing the Import Manifest no other document had been filed by the appellant. It further noted that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that the appellant had knowledge of the Pakistan-origin goods in the consignments. The absence of proceedings under CIER, 2010 was also considered a crucial factor indicating lack of mala fide intent.

The Bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) held that the penalty under Section 114AA cannot be imposed without proof of conscious knowledge or involvement. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting relief of ₹20 lakh to the appellant.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates