Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 894 - AT - CustomsRecovery of 4879.90 gms of gold jewellery concealed in metal sheet design cutting die and bottle hydraulic jack which was confiscated - the courier company failed to maintain due diligence and violated regulation 13(a),(c) of Courier (Imports and Exports) Clearance Regulations, 1988 - Held that - It is observed that the beneficiaries of the illicit import of gold jewellery are the shipper and the consignee. Courier companies typically book packages which are then transported to the destination airport where the local associate of overseas courier completes customs formalities and undertakes delivery of the consignments. Failure to deliver at the correct address is can, at least, be a dispute of civil nature between the shipper and the courier company. The appellant is a local associate of the overseas courier company; there is no client in India nor is any payment received from the consignee. The duty liability, if any, is also discharged before the courier packages are removed from the custody of the Customs. The utilisation of a sub-contractor for undertaking local delivery is a business decision which is beyond the scope of Courier (Imports and Exports) Clearance Regulations. In the present instance the goods were still under Customs custody when the investigation was conducted and there is no scope for an allegation that the appellant had, at any stage, abetted in the import of the contravening goods. For the above reason the impugned order has failed to discharge its obligation to render a finding with sufficient evidence. Appeal allowed - penalty set aside - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Recovery of concealed gold jewellery in courier packages, violation of Courier Regulations, role of courier company in illicit imports, liability of local correspondent, duty discharge, penalty imposition.
In this case, the appeal pertains to the recovery of 4879.90 gms of gold jewellery concealed in courier packages imported by fictitious firms. The packages were taken on behalf of the consignees by a third party, leading to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of a penalty of &8377; 5 lakhs on the appellant. The findings highlighted the failure of the courier company to maintain due diligence and violation of Courier Regulations. Investigations revealed the existence of fictitious consignee firms involved in illicit imports, suggesting the active connivance of the courier company. The appellant, a local correspondent of an overseas courier, argued that the obligation to ascertain package genuineness does not extend to local correspondents. The appellant's role was limited to handling packages locally, without involvement in customs clearance or delivery. The judgment referenced a previous decision to support this argument. The Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the impugned order, emphasizing the findings against the appellant. The judgment observed that the beneficiaries of the illicit import were the shipper and the consignee, with courier companies facilitating transportation and customs formalities. The appellant, as a local associate, had no direct involvement with clients in India or payment from consignees. The duty liability was discharged before packages left Customs custody. The decision to use a sub-contractor for local delivery was deemed a business decision beyond the scope of Courier Regulations. As the goods were under Customs custody during the investigation, the appellant was not implicated in the import of contravening goods. The judgment concluded that the impugned order lacked sufficient evidence to uphold the penalty, leading to the allowance of the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, highlighting the distinction between the roles of courier companies, local correspondents, and the liability of parties involved in the import process. The judgment emphasized the necessity of sufficient evidence to support penalty imposition and the limited obligations of local correspondents in the context of overseas courier operations.
|