Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 512 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty on courier agency on the ground that they have failed to exercise due diligence in performing their work as an authorized courier and thus, their inaction/negligence has led to this attempt of smuggling of costly goods in the guise of low value spare parts. - Held that:- the appellants are a Courier Company and in ordinary course of business they do not come to know about the factual desertion of the goods or actual value of the same. They are only aware of the details as disclosed by the clients. As argued by the learned AR, it is seen that no allegation in respect of failure to follow regulation 13(a) have been made in the notice and therefore, he cannot place any reliance on any fact relating to failure to observe the said regulations. Furthermore, it is seen that no specific case of non-compliance, which was known to the appellant, was pointed out either in the notice or in the impugned order and therefore no allegation made for failure to observe the obligation under regulation 13(b) can be made. - However, regulation 13(c) provides for a very wide scope. The appellants were required to exercise due diligence. The fact that the weight of consignment was 22 kg and the freight was ₹ 25,000/- but the declared value was less than ₹ 3000/- should have raised suspicion. Therefore, it is felt that it was possible for the appellant to exercise due diligence in respect of the consignment. Considering that the appellants are in the courier business such consignments are indeed the outliners and needed closer scrutiny. However, considering the facts of the case, it is felt that the penalty imposed of ₹ 1 lakh is excessive and penalty under Section is revised to ₹ 10,000/- only - Decided partly in favor of appellant.
|