Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1509 - HC - CustomsRestoration of Registration of Courier License - All that the Revenue would argue is that the Tribunal should not have interfered with the concurrent orders for they are passed on the materials produced on record - Jurisdiction of CESTAT - Regulation 14 of the said Regulations - Held that: - There are compliances to be made and particularly of execution of bond and furnishing of security. By Regulation 12, it is stated that a courier, who is registered under Regulation 10 or had intimated in form 'A' to the Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the Customs Station from where he has to transact the business, shall furnish a bond and security as specified in Regulation 11 for each Customs Station. The obligation of authorised courier is set out in Regulation 13 and then, there is a power of de-registration. That power is conferred in the Commissioner of Customs. By sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 14, the aggrieved authorised courier and whose authorisation is revoked or he is de-registered, may, if aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, represent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs in writing against such order of the competent authority and thereafter it is permissible for the Chief Commissioner to dispose of the representation. We do not think that the tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has acted perversely in entertaining the appeal. More so, when the attempt of the Revenue was to question its jurisdiction on more than one occasion. The case of the Revenue is not that the courier agent sub-contracted to sublet/outsource any of the activity/function for the purpose of assessment and clearance of courier parcels. On further scrutiny, it was found that the charge of violation of Regulation 13(j) is not substantiated - also, the tribunal found that no infringement of KYC verification leading to any significant revenue loss was pointed out even in the SCN. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|