TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration, for contravention of provisions of Regulations 12(1)(i), 12(1)(iii), 12(1)(iv), 12(1)(v), 12(1)(vii), 12(1)(x) of the CIER, 2010 in terms of Regulation 13(1) of the CIER, 2010. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on M/s Sitex International, under the provisions of Regulation 14 of CIER, 2010. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorised representative for the Revenue and have perused the records. 3. Goods can be imported or exported through the normal channels such as by air or ship or through couriers. If goods are imported through normal channels, the importer usually engages a customs broker who files the Bill of Entry as per documents provided by the importer and once the goods were cleared through the customs after payment of duty the importer takes the goods away. When goods are imported through courier the processes are slightly different inasmuch as the courier not only processes the clearance of the goods through the customs but actually receives the goods from the overseas exporter, transports them to India, clears them through the customs and further delivers them to the consignee in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnment belonged to one Shri Mukesh Rana who engaged the appellant to clear the goods. Statement of Shri Azarouddin Ansari was recorded by the officers on 14.10.2019 who confirmed that he had filed the bills of entry for the 37 consignments and that they had full knowledge that the imported goods were commercial goods and not household goods as declared on the Bills of Entry. He further stated that Shri Mukesh Rana had contacted him and offered Rs. 200/- per kg. to clear these goods in the guise of household goods whereas for clearance of usual household goods they get only Rs. 53/- per kg. He further clarified that he would hand over the goods to Shri Mukesh Rana after clearance from customs as per the convenience of Shri Mukesh Rana. 6. Shri Mukesh Rana, in his statement dated 14.10.2019 confirmed that he had contacted Shri Azarouddin Ansari Kadar to clear the goods. He further said that the owner of these goods was one Shri Anmol Krishna Murthy - a resident of Mumbai, who would give him Rs. 250/- per kg as clearance charges of which he would pay Rs. 200/- per kg to Shri Azarouddin Ansari Kadar. After clearance of the goods from customs he was going to deliver the goods to Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and did not pay any amount to his company for the goods. He further confirmed them that he does not have any FSSAI registration for the imported goods. 9. After completing the investigation and following due process, the order-in-original dated 28.2.2020 was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs whereby the goods were confiscated the duty was re-assessed and penalties were imposed upon Shri Anmol Krishna Murthy who claimed to be the owner of the goods. 10. This order of the Additional Commissioner formed the basis for the present proceedings against the appellant under the Regulations and the issue of the impugned order. 11. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel made the following submissions: (i) The appellant is a proprietorship firm of Shri A. Kader Riswan which was granted a license under Regulation 10. In 2019, 37 courier bills of entry were filed by Shri Azarouddin Ansari Kadar, the Assistant Manager of the appellant firm. (ii) On examination, the goods were found to be mis-declared as household items when, infact, they were food supplements and ladies suits. The consignments belonged to Shri Mukesh Rana who engaged Shri Azarouddin Ansari K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rport), Mumbai [2017 (357) ELT 420 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; (ii) Commissioner Vs. V.B. Bhatia Co. [2008 (224) ELT A97 (Bom.)]; (iii) Patel on Board Courier Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2003 (151) ELT 399 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; (iv) Commissioner Vs. Bharat Overseas Communicators [2015 (322) ELT A325 (Bom.)]; (v) Daroowalla Bros. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2016 (333) ELT 182 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; (vi) Killick Air Courier Forwarders Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Mumbai [1998 (97) ELT 182 (Tribunal)]; (vii) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC)]; (viii) Thakkar Shipping Agency Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1994 (69) ELT 90 (Tribunal)]. 13. She relied on M/s Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. wherein the 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. 14. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue supported t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. Shri Mukesh Rana, in turn, contacted Shri Azarouddin Kadar of the appellant firm who provided the names and details of consignors and consignees and accordingly, the goods were shipped. However, since the imports were made through courier, the appellant firm itself has to file the courier of bills of entry for clearance of goods and after clearance deliver the goods to the consignees. Shri Krishna Murthy said all goods were to be delivered to him in Dwarka at his place. Shri Mukesh Rana also confirmed the same statement and confirmed that he received 250/- per kg to clear the goods from Shri Krishna Murthy of which he would pay Rs. 200/- to Shri Kadar. Shri Kadar also confirmed the same facts in his statement and said that instead of Rs. 53/- per kg which they would usually get clearance of household goods, they were getting Rs.200/- per kg for these goods. He also confirmed that after clearance he would only deliver the goods to Shri Mukesh Rana as per his convenience and not to the consignees indicated in the Bills of Entry. Shri Mukesh Rana also confirmed that after receiving the goods he would deliver them to Shri Krishna Murthy at his premises in Dwarka. Thus, we find ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has denied any knowledge of the alleged conspiracy and offence committed by certain persons, which included some employees of the appellant. This lack of knowledge was not in dispute in that case. In other words, that was clearly a case where the appellant had no knowledge whatsoever of the fraud committed in that case. The present case, is quite different as the appellant had full knowledge that commercial goods were being imported in the Master Airway bill, but instead bills of entry were filed in the name of various consignors and consignees. Further, these names of so called consignors and so called consignees were provided by the appellant itself through Shri Mukesh Rana to Shri Krishna Murthy who is the master mind and accordingly consignments were labelled and packed. Thus, the appellant was fully involved in the process starting from deciding the names of the consignors and consignees in whose names the goods should be imported up to filing the Bills of Entry. Had it succeeded in clearing the consignments, it would have delivered the goods to Shri Mukesh Rana as per his convenience and not to the consignees. 18. The profit gained through this operation is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lements by providing details of consignors and consignees in whose names unbeknownst to them, the goods could be imported. 21. Regulation 12(1)(iv) requires an authorised courier to verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC number, identity of his client and the functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, date or information. In the normal course, this would be easy for any courier because it has to finally deliver the goods by itself at the declared address of the consignee after clearance from the customs. In this case, instead, the appellant has facilitated imports and attempted to obtain clearance of the goods in the name of many consignees when the actual consignee was Shri Krishna Murthy through Shri Mukesh Rana to whom the appellant was to deliver the goods as per his convenience. Thus the appellant has, therefore, violated Regulation 12(1)(iv). 22. Regulation 12(1) (v) requires the couriers to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i), (iv), (v), (vii) and (x) were clearly violated by the appellant, we find that revocation of the registration of the appellant under Regulation 13 is correct and proper and calls for no interference. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there is no provision in the Regulations for forfeiture of the security. This submission is not correct as Regulation 13 clearly provides that the Commissioner may pass an order for forfeiture of security also in addition to revocation of the registration. The conditions of the bond executed by the appellant under Regulation 11 are to comply with the provisions for the act, rules and regulations made thereunder. As we have found that 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. 27. Further, we find that for the various contraventions of these regulations as discussed above 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. 28. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order is correct and proper an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
