TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. - Customs Appeal No. 81 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2018 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Mr. Adwait Sethna with Mr. Jitendra Mishra for the appellant. Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghvi and Ms. Neha Ahuja i/b. M/s. Prompt Legal for the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shore Mishra was found to be the holder of the import export code, which was obtained by him on behalf of M/s. Smashing Traders. His address was found to be bogus and there was no such office functioning in the name of M/s. Smashing Traders at the said address. The country head of the first respondent was questioned and his statement is relied upon by the Revenue. On these materials, eventually, a suspension order was passed on 25th September, 2014 suspending the registration of the licence granted to the first respondent under Regulation 10 of the Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 as amended. This was post issuance of a show cause notice to the first respondent. A writ petition was filed in this court against that suspension and that petition was dismissed. All that this court directed was to conclude the inquiry pursuant to the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible. 3. Thereafter, the inquiry was concluded, the inquiry report was forwarded and based on the findings therein, a further show cause notice was issued. The first respondent filed written response and also attended the oral hearing. On 12th December, 2014, an order was passed styled as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns that were alleged as against the first respondent are that it did not obtain prior permission of the Customs to sublet/outsource any of the components in the door to door supply chain and that is why Regulation 13(j) was violated. That the import and export documents were not filed through a person who has passed the examination referred to in Regulation 8 or 19 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. That the first respondent has not followed the Know Your Customer (KYC) norms for significant percentage of the consignments checked and had failed to maintain proper records in electronic format while engaging third party courier for last mile delivery. They have no mechanism in place for procuring authorisation/KYC for such imports. The software system is not capable of storing KYC/authorisation record for export and authorisation/KYC/POD records for import in electronic form. That is why Regulation 13(a) and 13(j) read with circular dated 7th September, 2010 has been violated and as far as the acts of the importer are concerned, those were under investigation. 9. The tribunal noted all the factual aspects and then came to the conclusion that firstly, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is scrutiny of applications by the Commissioner of Customs in terms of Regulation 9 and then, the registration is granted in exercise of powers of registration under Regulation 10. 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. 12. The tribunal found that even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
