Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 1086 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - Forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - Confiscation of goods - revocation of license of the courier was set aside on the ground that the offence was committed by its employee without knowledge of the courier firm and also for the reason that the licence of the courier had already been suspended for one year before and therefore the courier had suffered sufficient punishment - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that commercial goods whose import requires an Import Export Code (IEC) and also clearance and FSSAI (in case of food supplements) were imported through 37 bills of entry filed by the appellant. These were filed in the name of 37 different people who had nothing to do with nor any knowledge of the imports. The appellant had in its possession the details of these people which it misused. The real owner of the goods was Shri Anmol Krishna Murthy who, in his statement, admitted that the details of the consignors and consignees indicated in the bills of entry and on the cartons were provided to him by Shri Azarouddin Kadar of the appellant firm. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that simply because an employee of the appellant had committed an error or fraud, the licence of the appellant should not be revoked. This statement cannot be accepted. The employee of the courier has no locus standi in getting the goods cleared through the customs. The licence is issued to the appellant and the appellant has to get the goods cleared - It is not the case that somebody hacked into the system and misused the credentials of the appellant to file the bills of entry. They were filed by the appellant’s own employee Shri Azarouddin Kadar Riswan who was employed as Assistant Manager by the appellant to manage its business in Delhi. Therefore, the full responsibility for any action of the employees of the appellant rests on the appellant. Regulation 12(1)(i) requires the courier to obtain an authorisation from each of the consignees or consignors of imported goods for couriers of export goods to the effect that it may act as an agent of such consignor or consignee. In this case the so called consignors and consignees indicated in the bills of entry had nothing to do with the consignments - there is no error in the order of the Commissioner holding that the appellant has violated the Regulations. These provide that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may revoke the registration of an authorised courier and also pass an order for forfeiture of security on any of the grounds prescribed. The impugned order was correct in holding that the appellant violated several regulations there is no reason for us to interfere with the forfeiture of security deposit - for the various contraventions of these regulations as discussed the appellant was correctly held liable to penalty under Regulation 14 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference - Appeal dismissed.
|