Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1073 - AT - CustomsRevocation of registration - Held that:- Registration was revoked alongwith forfeiture of ₹ 10,00,000/- security deposit, is that they are not "authorized courier" as per Regulation 3 (a) of CIER, 1998/Regulation 3 (1) (b) of CIER, 2010. We note that both these are definition clause of "authorized courier". We note that the registration in 2009 has been granted by the Competent Authority, apparently after due process. The review of the registration has been done prompted by guidelines for improved monitoring of cargo movement issued by the Board in September 2010. It is an admitted fact that the appellant have not filed any bill for clearance of any import or export package and are yet to start their operation as "authorized courier" in terms of the registration granted. In such situation, we find forfeiture of ₹ 10,00,000/-security deposit without any contravention by the appellant is not justifiable. Such punitive action has to have a premise of violation of certain provision of law. The same is not demonstrated in the present case. Regarding revocation of registration, we find the action of the lower Authority is preemptive though aimed at enforcing certain revised guidelines for improved monitoring and better compliance of cargo movement across the border. We find that taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellant and also the fact that they are yet to commence the operation that and are pleading the financial difficulty as a reason for delay in improving the infrastructure, we find it fit and proper to direct the learned Commissioner for re-verification of the facilities in December 2016 by which tinie the appellant has undertaken to put up all the required infrastructure in place and thereafter to take a fresh decision about the continuation of the appellant as authorized courier in terms of the above Regulations.
|