The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ordered revocation of courier registration as there was violation of Regulation of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 (CIER) by the licensed courier.
The Verification of genuineness of POD was also conducted by the jurisdictional Commissinerate and the PODs were found forged. Most of the addresses were fictitious and the consignments were found bogus. The verification report clearly revealed that authorized courier/ respondent has failed to exercise due diligence and to comply with the conditions of provisions of Regulation of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 (“CIER,2010”).
Resultantly the show cause notice was served upon the appellant proposing revocation of their courier registration for contravention of provisions of Regulation 12 (1) (iv), 12 (1) (v) and 12 (1) (x) of CIER,2010 for forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty was also proposed. The said proposal was not accepted except that the penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed upon the respondent. The said order has been reviewed vide aforesaid order directing the appellant-department to file appeal before this Tribunal. Resultantly, the present appeal has been filed by the department.
The Counsel for the respondent has submitted that Rule 12 (iv) of Regulation of CIER, 2010 has not been violated by the respondent as there was sufficient verification done about antecedents and identity with respect to five consignments. The respondent has exercised due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information in regard to alleged five consignments. The respondent also submits that all subject consignments were non commercial in nature. These were basically gift items imported from middle-east meant for dependent members of family of the respective consignor. Therefore, question of any loss of customs duty, does not arise.
A Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprising Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member observed that “In view of above discussions, we also find that there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the above said Regulations have been violated by the respondent. The violation invite revocation of courier licence as per Regulation 11. But the original adjudicating authority despite acknowledging the alleged violations has merely imposed penalty. Since the alleged act is proved to be intentional act of the respondent, we hold that mere imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) is disproportionate punishment.”
“Hence, we accept the prayer made by the appellant-department for revocation of courier registration of the respondent for committing intentional fraud while importing several goods in the name of those being gifts from Non Resident Indian (NRI) to their family member residing in India, which otherwise were not imported by them nor were meant for them” the Bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
