TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification no.154/94-CUS dated 13.07.1994. Apparently, the allegations against the petitioner are not merely procedural but serious as the genuineness of the consignees is in doubt. The least that was required of the petitioner was to, candidly, disclose the nature of all allegations made against the petitioner. However, even though the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 refers to other proceedings, the petitioner has carefully ensured that the writ petition is bereft of any details as to the other proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner in respect of the consignments purportedly delivered by the petitioner. The show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 contained an allegation that the petitioner had not been submitting authorisations which were statutorily required. It was further alleged that the signatures on delivery proofs of consignments imported were forged/fabricated and the petitioner had sublet delivery of goods to another courier without prior permission as required. The impugned order dated 17.06.2014 had further specifically noted that the petitioner had not submitted authorisation certificates in respect of 40 bills of entries during the period 16.10.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for delivery of the consignments to the consignees and further, the signatures appearing on several authorisations appeared to be similar, which indicated that the signatures on the authorisations were forged/fabricated. In addition, it was alleged that petitioner had availed of the services of another courier without any prior permission of the Commissioner of Customs as required by virtue of Regulation 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations. 3.2 The petitioner responded to the show cause notice and contended that the authorisations and the delivery receipts were available with the petitioner and if given an opportunity, the petitioner would be able to furnish the said documents. It was further submitted that it was a common practice that every courier agency availed the services of other agencies in order to perform their work. Although the petitioner admitted that prior permission to use another courier agency, namely DTDC, had not been taken, nonetheless, the petitioner contended that DTDC was a responsible and an authorised courier and, therefore, the lapse in obtaining prior permissions be condoned. The petitioner further asserted that it had not knowingly or deliberately done any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s serious doubts not only about the genuinity of the consignees but even about the delivery of the consignments. The violations are not merely procedural in nature as pleaded by the applicant company but are serious in nature having/involving revenue implications. The charges also include manipulation of documents and forging/fabrication of signatures and the applicant company have remained silent on this aspect in their submissions. Further the revenue implication of the matter are evident from the fact that the applicant company have been issued a show cause notice by the Additional Commissioner (Exports) for denial of benefit of Notification no 154/94-Cus dated 13/07/1994 and proposing recovery of duty amounting to ₹ 2,91,310/- in respect of these 308 consignments and imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for having rendered the imported goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) alleging that in the absence of concrete evidence of genuinity of consignees all the consignments belonged to the applicant company and they had filed Bills of Entry in different fictitious names and that the value in each such case was kept below Rs. Ten Thousan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, the petitioner has carefully ensured that the writ petition is bereft of any details as to the other proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner in respect of the consignments purportedly delivered by the petitioner. The writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. Since it is alleged that the petitioner had violated Regulation 13(a), 13(g) and 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations, it is necessary to refer to the said regulations and the same are quoted below:- 13. Obligations of Authorised Courier. An Authorised Courier shall- (a) obtain an authorisation, from each of the consignees of the import goods for whom such Courier has imported such goods or consignors of such export goods which such courier proposes to export, to the effect that the Authorised Courier may act as agent of such consignee or consigner, as the case may be, for clearance of such import or export goods by the proper officer; Provided that for import consignments having a declared value of ten thousand rupees or less, the authorization may be obtained at the time of delivery of the consignments to consignee. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (g) maintain records and acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior permission as required. The impugned order dated 17.06.2014 had further specifically noted that the petitioner had not submitted authorisation certificates in respect of 40 bills of entries during the period 16.10.2012 to 31.10.2012. The allegation with respect to non-submission of authorisation certificates had been indicated in the show cause notice. In addition, the imports made by the petitioner were, apparently, subject matter of another show cause notice referred to by the Chief Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order dated 17.06.2014. The petitioner, thus, had full knowledge of the allegations and also had the opportunity for meeting the same. 12. The contention of the petitioner that its licence could be suspended instead of revoking the same as a punitive measure also cannot be accepted. Regulation 14 of the 1998 Regulations only envisages suspension of licence pending completion of enquiry and does not provide for suspension of licence as a separate punitive measure. Regulation 14(1) of the 1998 Regulation is quoted below:- 14. Deregistration. (1) The Commissioner of Customs may revoke the registration of an Authorised Courier and also order forfeitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
