TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer. Accordingly, the allegation and finding under Regulation 6(4) are set aside. Regulation 12 (iv) of CIER - HELD THAT:- In the case of booking of consignment through Navya Creations for one Mr. Rakesh Jagid, there is no violation of the provision, as both Navya Creation and Rakesh Jagid have responded in the course of enquiry and cooperated in the matter. However, so far the booking of the 2 consignments through their ASP- Allied Aviation Private Limited for one Mr. Munshi Jogi is concerned, it is evident that the Appellant did produce the relevant KYC documents (Aadhar card) of their client, but there is lack of sufficient efforts to trace and produce the said Mr. Munshi Jogi before the customs for enquiry and investigation. Thus, there is no violation of Regulation 12 (iv) of CIER with regard to the 2 consignments booked for the consignor - Mr. Munshi Jogi. The Appellant had urged that as the consignment was booked through their ASP, they had accepted the consignment relying on their ASP. Allegation under Regulation 12(v) - only allegation is that there is delay of about 3 months in bringing details/ information to the knowledge of the customs - HELD THAT:- The Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rway Bill Nos. 788651806211, 788657429210 and 788656981200, and after examination, these consignments had been lying unattended at the New Courier Terminal till the visit of DRI, DZU on 23.10.2019. 3. Regarding CSB No. 788651836211 shipment was booked on 25.07.2019 by the Consignor- Navya Creations, wherein the goods were declared to be wall hanging statues. It is pertinent to mention that Navya Creations are the regular clients of the Appellant and Appellants maintain their proper KYC records. As the said consignment was not marked for examination either by the Customs, the Appellant presented the consignment for x-ray screening. At the time of x-ray screening which is done by the authorised agency of the Airport Authority, there appeared to be something stuffed inside the wall hanging statues. Accordingly, the Appellant on the very same day, informed the proper officer - Deputy Commissioner of Customs in writing. The Deputy Commissioner marked the matter to the Superintendent of Customs for examination. On the very same day, the Appellant also sent an email to Navya Creation informing about the suspected stuffing in the goods which appears to be a case of mis-declaration. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not aware about the illegal goods being attempted to be sent or exported by Mr. Rakesh Jangid. 5. The Customs examined the said consignment on 21.08.2019, and it was found that marble pot have been stuffed with medicines psychotropic substance. Accordingly, the consignment was detained for further proceedings. Thereafter, the Appellant received an email from the DRI, Delhi dated 23.10.2019 and they also visited the warehouse of the Appellant for physical examination. The DRI also took custody of the shipments after preparing punchnama on the same day. The Appellant immediately informed the development and seizure of the goods by DRI vide punchnama dated 23.10.019 to the Deputy Commissioner, Customs. The Deputy Commissioner duly permitted Appellant to handover the consignment to DRI for further examination. After few days, on 03.12.2019 the Appellant received summons from special investigation Branch customs (SIIB) for hearing on 04.12.2019. The Appellant appeared before the SIIB customs. Statement of Mr. Deepal Singh Khati Clearance Specialist of FedEx was recorded on 06.12.2019, wherein he inter alia stated that they collect the KYC documents of the client at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not respond in spite of reminders. Further, Mr. Deepal Khati was questioned regarding the delay in presenting the shipment for examination by the customs. To this, Mr. Kathi replied that due to shortage of customs officers, there is a normal backlog of about 10 days in the examination process. Further, this consignments got further delayed by about 3 weeks or so, due to shortage of the customs officers and there being several consignments for examination. He further reiterated that there is no delay on their part in presenting the consignment for examination. 7. Show cause notice dated 27.10.2020 was issued as it appeared to the customs that delay have been caused in the examination, due to slackness on the part of the Appellant and after examination, these consignments had been lying unattended at the New Courier Terminal, till the visit of DRI on 23.10.2019. As regards, shipment of Navya Creation, it appeared that they had booked the consignment on the request made by employee of FedEx - Mr. M.S. Pareekh, whereas the shipment actually belongs to one Mr. Rakesh Jangid (a cash customer). Further, Appellant have under the circumstances terminated the service of Mr. M.S. Pareek, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(1) of CIER, 2010, I refrain from revoking the Authorised Courier Licence No. DEL/POL/COUR/09/2013(AABCF6516A) valid upto 18.11.2028 of M/s FedEx. However, the Authorized Courier is warned to be careful in performing their duties, in future as time and again such matters are coming to the notice of Department, hence it require strengthening of their procedure and due diligence in their operation to avoid repetition of such events. (b) I order for forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) furnished by them. (c) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under the provisions of Regulation 14 of CIER, 2010. 10. Being aggrieved the Appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned counsel inter alia urges that Regulation 6 of CIER, 2010 under sub-Regulation 4 provides for the authorised courier shall present the export goods to the proper officer, in such manner as to the satisfaction of the proper officer or as per instructions issued by the Board or public notice issued by principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, from time to time, for inspection, screening, examination and assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Navya Creation. 13.1. Assailing these findings, learned Counsel states that it is evident from record that Appellant have taken immediate measures by detaining and informing their client the illegality on the same day, when they found the stuffing of medicines pursuant to screening on 25.07.2019 itself. Further they also received reply of Navya Creation with regard to the facts and circumstances of booking of the said consignment. Thereafter, they have initiated domestic enquiry against their employee Mr. M. S. Pareek and ascertained the facts and on finding him to have violated the business norms and internal control procedures, Mr. M.S. Pareek have been dismissed from service. Further, the Appellant brought to notice of the customs from time to time and particularly, when they were summoned to give the details and their officer Mr. Deepal Khati appeared and tendered his statement. Even prior to 06.12.2019, the Appellant had informed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs with regard to the inspection etc. made by the DRI officers. Further, Deputy Commissioner of Customs had permitted the Appellant to handover the possession of the disputed consignments to the DRI officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant had also been cooperating with the various agencies of the customs and had kept the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Customs informed of this development, which is evident from the fact that the D.C. of customs had permitted the Appellant to handover the consignments under dispute to the DRI officers for further examination and investigation. Further, this is not the case that Appellant have withheld any information which had come to their knowledge from the Custom department. There may be a delay of few days which is wholly unintentional. Though, the information was given to one of the agencies of Customs, that the other agency may have felt that they did not get the information in time. Thus, there is no deliberate violation of the provisions of the Regulation 12(v) of CIER, 2010. 17. The next allegation made against the appellant is under Regulation 12 (vi) of CIER, 2010, which provides that the appellant as authorised courier shall not withhold information communicated to him by an officer of customs, relating to assessment and clearance of imported goods as well as inspection, examination and clearance of export goods, from a consignor or consignee, who is enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation from the customs. Accordingly, urges that the allegation is not made out and the findings of the learned Commissioner are fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further urges that the domestic enquiry in respect of their employee Mr. M.S. Pareek was an internal matter of the Appellant, they did not inform immediately, but did disclose all the facts when they were required to disclose on 06.12.2019. 19. Accordingly, she prays for allowing the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order. 20. Opposing the appeal, learned AR for revenue relies on the findings in the impugned order. He further states that the Appellant was irresponsible for the misgivings on the part of their employee Mr M.S. Pareek, who persuaded Navya Creations to introduce the consignment of an outsider without informing or taking permission of the competent officer of the Appellant. Thus, there appeared to be lack of internal control procedures at the end of the Appellant. Further, customs came to know about the details of such bookings, when the statement was recorded of Mr. Deepal Khati, the competent officer of the Appellant. Thus, it is evident that the Appellant - courier had not verified the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the Aadhar number is mentioned, thus, the Appellant had definitely collected sufficient documents to comply with the KYC norms in case of Munshi Jogi. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Commissioner in the impugned order for Regulation 12(iv) are set aside. 24. So far, allegation under Regulation 12(v) is concerned, the only allegation is that there is delay of about 3 months in bringing details/ information to the knowledge of the customs. I find that the Appellant was in constant touch and had kept the customs informed. The apparent contravention is only due to involvement of three agencies, the Customs House, thereafter, the DRI and thereafter the SIIB. Thus, there is only few days gap in informing the particular agency but there is no deliberate keeping back of any information or giving or withholding any information whenever asked for. Accordingly, this ground is allowed and the findings of ld. Commissioner is set aside. 25. So for the allegation under Regulation 12 (vi) and (vi) are concerned, there is no apparent violation. The learned Commissioner observed that on perusal of email exchanged between the Appellant and Navya Creation, although appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
