Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1003 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - authorized courier - not obtaining authorization from the consignee for the import of the consignment - failure to comply with Regulation 13 of the Courier Regulations - HELD THAT:- The facts have revealed that the appellant had no knowledge about the incident of manipulation of their office system and the clearance of the consignments falsely declared as ‘documents’. Sri Naveen Kumar who was a former employee of the appellant has categorically admitted that he is only responsible for the manipulation committed and that no one in the office of the appellant as well as the appellant is involved in the offence. The SCN also has not alleged any role played by the appellant in the clandestine activity. Apart from alleging that appellant did not obtain any authorization there is no overt act of involvement established against the appellant. It is also seen from the records that Sri Naveen Kumar was terminated from services. Sri T.S. Narayanan, who is the General Manager of the appellant authorized courier has submitted before the officers that all the consignments were booked by M/s.Jupiter Import Export Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The appellant has cooperated with the investigation so as to bring out the truth. On appreciation of the evidence, we do not find grounds to hold that the appellant had played any role in the incident. In such circumstances, the order of revocation of the license cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside. However, as the appellant has not obtained authorization from the importer, the forfeiture of security deposit would be adequate. Forfeiture of Rs.10 lakhs is on the higher side - forfeiture of Rs.5,00,000/- would be sufficient. Appeal allowed in part.
|