Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (I&G) , New Delhi

2016 (7) TMI 1120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Levy of penalty on courier company - charge of abetment - mis-declaration of goods - Original Authority ordered the confiscation of goods; imposed penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs on the consignee of the parcel; imposed a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh and ₹ 25,000/- on the present appellants; dropped proceedings against two customs officers. - Held that:- the Original Authority recorded that the courier bill of entry is having endorsement of the officer for having examined the consignments. Apparent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icers and also no charge of any pecuniary benefits accruing to the said officers. All these go to show that the officers have discharged their duty and the goods have been cleared after due examination. It is not clear then how the mis-declared item could be detected at the TNT hub of the courier company much away from the custom area. - Different standards have been followed by the Original Authority in examining the charge of abetment - one for the customs officers the other for courier c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

set of facts. - I find that while the statements given by the officers have been accepted as truth, the statement given by the employee of courier company has been discounted selectively, at least w.r.t. the fact of examination of cargo before clearance. - Charge of abetment cannot be sustained against the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. - No penalty - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal Nos. 51063, 52412 of 2014 (SM) - Final Order No. 52434-52435/2016 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

India Pvt. Ltd.) is a courier company engaged in the clearance of Courier Cargo through Customs and another appellant (Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta) is employee of the first appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the officers of DRI, Lucknow Zonal Unit conducted certain enquiries in July, 2012 w.r.t. certain parcels consigned to one Shri P.K. Tiwari, New Delhi. On physical verification of the parcels it was found that instead of declared goods of CD writer, the actual goods were found to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eged role of the appellants in the violations of customs provisions in the import of the impugned goods. The Original Authority held that the appellant courier company and the representative of the company have abetted the improper importation of the goods by their acts of commission and omission. The main allegation upheld by the Original Authority is that the courier company violated the provisions of Regulation 12 (i) (iii) (iv) of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Proce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ta or information. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants submitted mainly on the following grounds : (a) the main appellant is an established reputed courier company known internationally and have been following the provisions of Customs Act and the Courier Regulations deligently ; (b) the parcel which has come from Hong Kong was to have been delivered through the main appellant in terms of their arrangement with Hong Kong Courier company. Since the value declared in the docum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Customs. It is also submitted that no person shall, except with permission of proper officer, open any packages of imported goods. As such, the appellant is not aware of the contends of the packages and acted on the basis of documents accompanying the parcels. They have not failed in any of their responsibility as they have acted as per the normal practice ; (d) the charge of abetting improper import cannot be sustained against the appellants in the absence of any evidence of their prior knowled .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on mis-declared cargo was found. The Original Authority relying on the statement of customs officers exonerated them from the charge of abetting whereas the appellants have been held to be abetting the improper import on similar set of facts ; (f) the existence or non-existence of consignee in the given address cannot be pre-verified in case of 'small value cargo' and the non-existence of consignee at the given address by itself cannot bring a charge of abetment against the courier compa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T. 272 (Tri. -Mumbai) to state that imposition of penalty on courier company is justified in these circumstances. 4. Heard both the sides and examined appeal records. The point for decision is the correctness of penal action against the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. Penalty under Section 112 (a) was imposed on both the appellants. Section 112 (a) relevant to present appeal, states : "Section 112 - Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. Any person, - (a) who .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to Regulation 12 (1) (i) makes it clear that the rigour of obtaining authorization for clearance of import goods has been relaxed in respect of low value dutiable consignments. Regulation 3 (ga) states "low value dutiable consignments" means an import consignment other than documents, gifts and samples of an invoice value not exceeding ₹ 1 lakh. In the present case the invoice value declared is U.S. $ 120, as such, the question of prior authorization is not a mandatory requireme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nly on due satisfaction of the antecedents of the consignees in respect of each such parcel. No such stipulation could be read into the regulation. 5. Further, the charge of abetment against the appellant was sought to be established on the ground that they have not fully complied with Regulation 12 as discussed above. It is clear from the provisions of Section 112 (a) that such charge can be sustained only if any person who, in relation to any goods abets the doing or omission of an Act which w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is important to note that in terms of Regulation 5 the courier packages shall not be dealt with or opened except with the approval of the proper officer. In the present case, the Original Authority recorded that the courier bill of entry is having endorsement of the officer for having examined the consignments. Apparently this has been admitted by the Original Authority irrespective of the fact that the second appellant in his statement given before the officers alleged to have admitted that no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

after due examination. It is not clear then how the mis-declared item could be detected at the TNT hub of the courier company much away from the custom area. The Original Authority discounted the role of officers on the ground that the way bills were not tallied with the consignment at the time of examination in the TNT hub. However, he held the charge of abetment proved against the courier company only on the ground that they have failed in certain of their obligations under Regulation 12. Suc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

zation from the consignee is not relevant. I find that different standards have been followed by the Original Authority in examining the charge of abetment - one for the customs officers the other for courier company and its employee. On the one hand he held that the officers discharged their duty though it is clear that if the examination has been done before clearance as recorded by the Original Authority, the mis-declaration could not have escaped detection. However, for such mis-declaration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version