TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er record of address of delivery as the same was different from the address contained in the Aadhar Card. The appellant have not violated any of the provisions of the Courier Regulations read with the provisions of the Customs Act read with Explanatory Circular - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 51742 of 2021-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 51174 / 2022 - Dated:- 9-12-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Kruti Parasar Ms. Jyoti Pal, Advocates for the appellant Sh. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Pvt. Limited who are engaged in provision of Courier Services and are registered as Authorised courier under the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration Processing) Regulations, 2010 (Courier Regulations in short). 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order-in-original dated 17.06.2021 whereby the respondent Commissioner has ordered for forfeiture of security deposit (of Rs. 10 lakh as tendered by the appellant at the time of obtaining license) and further imposed pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.2019. 4.2 The subject consignment was opened and examined by the Customs authorities (recorded in panchnama on 12.12.2019), wherein it was found to contain Baoefeng Transreceiver Walkies Talkie Two Way Radio set and not electric toys as declared by the shipper in the invoice. The goods were seized and handed over to appellant for safe custody. 4.3 Department sought various details/ documents regarding past consignments cleared in the name of the said consignee - Sh. Sunirmal Mondal. Appellant provided the same, along with other documents, such as authorisation letter, copy of his PAN Aadhar Card etc. wherein the address of Purba Chandibari, Kauragacchi, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal was mentioned. The Department noticed that deliveries had been made to various different addresses (other than what mentioned above on the KYC documents), and requested to confirm if the appellant had used the same KYC documents for the past 22 consignments cleared for the consignee Sh. Sunirmal Mondal. The appellant informed the department that it had used the same KYC documents from their database and such KYC documents were not repeatedly collected. 4.4 One of the summons issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thus allegation of violation of Regulation 12(1)(i) was not substantiated. (ii) Circular No. 2/2018-Cus. does not prescribe the KYC done once completes the process; the appellant did not collect the identity proof of the consignee at all the different locations of delivery, and hence had not conducted proper due diligence. Thus, contravention of Regulations 12(1)(iv) and Regulation 12(1)(v) was substantiated. 5. The appellant filed the detailed objection/ submissions in response to the enquiry report on 08.06.2021. Learned Commissioner observed that the consignee - Sh. Sunirmal Mondal did not appear before the Customs on 14.11.2019 in response to summons. Thereafter the consignee aforementioned appeared and was examined on 12.12.2019 in presence of witnesses and representative of the appellant. The four carton boxes comprising the consignment, the goods instead of electronic toys as declared, were found to be Baofeng Transreceiver Walkie Talkie Two way Radio set total 90 sets, Baofeng Radio (NT) six sets and SMA Female Connector 2 pcs., Nagoya antenna -12 pcs. connecting wire -1 pair. Accordingly, the goods were found to be mis-declared and seized. It further appeared t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice that appellant has contravened Regulation 12(i), (iv) and (v) of the Courier Regulations as they have not collected KYC, address proof and authorisation for past shipments cleared to Sh. S. Mondal, except the one address as mentioned in Aadhar Card i.e. of Porva Chandibari, Kaugachhi North, 24 Pargana, West Bengal-743127. It was further alleged that appellant have not verified and collected the KYC and address proof for the shipment(s) cleared to Sh. S. Mondal at different address all over India. It was also alleged that appellant have not verified the antecedents and identity of his client as in the declared address and not exercised due diligence to collect the authorisation and KYC for past shipment. Thus, it was observed that appellant rendered themselves liable to be penalised under Regulation 14 of the Courier Regulations. It was also proposed to revoke courier license of the appellant. 8. Learned Commissioner has recorded the following findings:- 31. I find that the inquiry officer has rightly observed in the reply filed by the noticee regarding requirement of collecting KYC that the authorised courier has obtained authorisation from the consignee. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information under clause (iv). Ld. Commissioner has held that the appellant have procured proper authorisation and also was in possession of proper documents as per the KYC norms as required by law. But the ld. Commissioner have erred in observing that FeDex has not verified the KYC as required by law, which is erroneous. None of the documents in possession of the appellant which were received from the consignee like Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Aadhar Card verification of the consignee, PAN Card verification of the consignee were found to be false or untrue. As the appellant have duly abided by the prescribed KYC norm, there was no requirement to separately collect the identity proof each time before delivery. The appellant have duly complied the KYC norm as clarified by the Department vide Circular No. 33/2010 and 9/2010. Further, Circular No. 7/15/Cus. dt. 12.02.2015 clarifies that in case of individuals, one document which contains both the proof of identity and proof of address shall be sufficient. In this circular Aadhar Card was specified as a proper KYC documents for individuals. Ld. Counsel further urges that the Board again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs:- (i) CIT vs. Tara Agencies-2007 (214) ELT 491 (SC) (ii) FLE Fast Line Express Pvt. Ltd., vs. CC (Air Cargo Export), New Delhi 2021 (5) TMI 835 (Tri. New Delhi). (iii) M.K. Saha and Co. Vs. CC (Airport ACC) 2021 (12) TMI 350 (Tri. Kolkata). (iv) BN Thakkar Company vs. CC, Kandla -2020 (6) TMI 145 (Tri. Ahm.). 13. It is also urged that as the Commissioner had dropped proposal of revocation of the license, the order for forfeiture of the security deposit is bad in law and on facts. Further, in the facts and circumstances as the appellant have not violated any of the provisions of the Courier Regulations read with the Circular, no penalty is attracted under Regulation 14. Accordingly, ld. Counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 14. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 15. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the appellant authorised courier under the Courier Regulation have duly obtained the proof of identity cum proof of address by collecting the Aadhar and PAN as well as verification report of both the cards. Further, admittedly the appellant have recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
