TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the courier has to obtain Know Your Customer (KYC) documents from the consignees and their authorization and thereafter has to file courier bills of entry (CBEs) in respect of each of the consignments. After the goods are assessed by customs, the courier pays the customs duty and clears the goods and takes them to the premises of the importer and delivers them and collects the customs duty which was paid by the courier while clearing the goods. The appellant s main contention is the inquiry report dated 13.01.2021 is in favour of appellant. It has been held that the appellant has abided by all the provisions of the act and CIER Regulations. Alleged violation of Regulation 12 CIER has been ruled out. However the said report and the said order-in-original has been ignored by the order under challenge. It is observed that order dated 05.02.2021 has been discussed in the order under challenge. It has been observed therein that despite an investigation was under process with SIIB and status thereof was demand but was not produced till the time of said inquiry report dated 13.01.2021 and the said order-in-original dated 05.02.2021. Thus moot question of authenticity of authorizations a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the authorized courier M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the appellant also surfaced. It was found that the consignments were imported in the name of two different consignees namely M/s Mangalmurti Traders, Nagpur and M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya of Kolkata. However, from the proof of delivery submitted by the courier, it was observed that the consignment was delivered promptly within a day or two to one and the same person namely Suraj, who was based in Delhi. This meant that delivery of different consignments imported in the name of different companies at different locations, were delivered to one person in Delhi. Department formed an opinion that the authorized courier provided the incorrect information to the Customs Department and failed to follow the obligation under Regulation 12 (1) (v) of CIR, 2010, since the goods were found to have been deliberately mis-declared and misclassified and that the courier company only had filed the Courier Bills of entry, department alleged that the courier has connived with the importer to evade the huge amount of customs duty. 4. During investigation it was also observed that IEC of M/s Mangalmurti Traders was wrongly used for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 14.07.2023 confirming the proposal against both the importers, the beneficial importer namely Anoop Kumar and the Gulshan Kumar. However, the authority refrained from imposing any penalty on the appellant holding that the appellant has complied with the KYC norms and in respect of delivery of imported goods at Delhi instead of Nagpur and Kolkata, the proof of delivery were duly produced by the appellant having due authorization from the consignees in favour of the recipient. 6. A simultaneous show cause notice No. 32/2021 dated 24.12.2021 was also issued to the appellant with the alleged contravention of provision of CIER 2010 based on the above mentioned facts and circumstances. In addition, based on the physical examination report of the Chartered Engineer with respect to the seized imported goods, the said show cause notice has been adjudicated vide the order-in-original No. 48/2023 dated 18.08.2023. In the said order the appellant is held to have violated Regulation 12 (1) (i), (iii), (iv), (vii) (x) and accordingly order of revocation of courier registration of the appellant forfeiting the security deposit by him was passed. An order of imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossibility of tempering or modifying anything with respect to the particulars of the invoice including date, while filing or uploading on customs ECCs portal, hence, the involvement of the appellant and misconduct alleged by the department has no basis. All the allegations were duly replied with by the appellant vide their reply dated 25.10.2021 to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority below has failed to consider the documents. It has also failed to consider that the enquiry report and the earlier order-in-original has set aside the allegations against the appellant leveled in the initial show cause notice. With the submissions, the appeal in hand is prayed to be allowed. 10. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative submitted that description of the goods declared in the courier bills of entry with respect to both the importers were spare parts PCB LDC whereas on examination various undeclared goods, mobile accessories and spare parts along with iPhone in CKD conditions were found. These goods were properly classifiable under CTH 85171211 which attract customs duty @ 20% BCD, hence, the declaration of goods under CTH 85340000 @ nil BCD was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck panels, front panels, and other unbranded accessories. Based on this report violation of IPR is alleged. The valuation of these goods was arrived at with the help of Chartered Engineer Report dated 15.07.2021. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the connivance of appellant with the importer and beneficial importer and concealment of correct facts from the customs authority. Hence appellant/authorized courier is rightly held to have contravened the provision of Regulation 12 (1) (i) (iii) (iv) (vii) and (x) was of CIR, 2010. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge. Learned departmental representative has prayed for dismissal of appeal. 11. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties perusing the entire record, we observe and hold as follows :- The Department leveled allegations of mis-declaration of goods by the appellants as courier agents which otherwise were imported by M/s Mangalmurti Traders and M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya and that the appellant has violated Regulation 12 (1) (i) (iii) (iv) (vii) and (x) and CIER, 2010. It is alleged that appellant/ licensed courier has withheld information relating to assessment and clearance of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is otherwise produced by appellant to show that value declared is the correct value. 13. We further observe that Right holder, Apple Inc. vide their letter dated 12.03.2021 has submitted as follows :- (i) the stickers bearing the Apple word mark are counterfeit and found to be in violation of IPR. (ii) the IMEI number on the stickers all refer to older devices rather than new, unused devices. It is likely these stickers would be placed on packaging with devices inside to be sold on as new. (iii) in the present consignment, the importer has imposed counterfeit Apple products with the malafide intention of selling the same as genuine in the open markets and thereby deceiving the general public at large. This has been affirmed vide Inspection Report dated 12.03.2021 as has been impressed upon by learned Departmental Representative. Accordingly, we hold that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the under valuation as being committed by the appellant with respect to the impugned import consignments. 14. Coming to the allegations of appellant involvement viz-a-viz his connivance with the importers and concealment of relevant information from department and lack of due dilige ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as well as Shri Dagar have stated that the Courier Company, i.e. M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd., files the CBEs and decides the CTH. This is the basic role of a courier who acts on behalf of customs department to correctly declare the CTH of goods for the correct assessment of duty. In this era of self-declaration, such deliberate act is a serious breach of trust and is of serious concern. (vi) The courier had been asked to submit invoices in respect of the previous clearances made by the two importers. The invoices submitted by the courier during the investigation were different from those were uploaded on the system clearly indicating that the invoices were spurious and were actually prepared at the end of the courier only. (vii) The authorizations in respect of two importers submitted by the Courier too appeared to be forged as evident from the statements of Shri Gulshan and Shri Kripa Shankar. The authorizations were taken from the importers only after the seizure of impugned imported goods was made by SIIB. The authorized courier completely failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the veracity of the importers and to convey to the department that the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods from the overseas exporter, transports them to India, clears them through the customs and further delivers them to the consignee in India at his address. The Regulations regulating this process provide for licensing of couriers who only can handle this work. In such imports, after the goods are brought into the country the courier has to obtain Know Your Customer (KYC) documents from the consignees and their authorization and thereafter has to file courier bills of entry (CBEs) in respect of each of the consignments. After the goods are assessed by customs, the courier pays the customs duty and clears the goods and takes them to the premises of the importer and delivers them and collects the customs duty which was paid by the courier while clearing the goods. 17. It is established on record that Gulshan the employee of the appellant and the beneficial importer namely Anoop are the close friends and that said Anoop is the real brother of Kripa Shankar Maurya, one of the importer. Suraj, recipient of both the consignments meant of different consignee at distant distinct locations, is also admitted to be close associate of Gulshan. The G card holder of appellant, Suraj Dagar, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SIIB. (i) Inspection report Ref. No. 16561/Customs-27 dated 12.03.2021 was submitted by M/s Anand and Anand, the right holder of the Apple / iPhone, wherein it was informed that 173 pieces of yellow colored stickers having IMEI No. were counterfeit and were found to be in violation of the Intellectual Property Rights of the Right Holder and the numbers were likely to be reused for packaging with devices inside to be sold on as new; that the importer had imported counterfeit Apple products with the malafide intention of selling the same as genuine in the open markets and thereby deceiving the general public at large. (ii) A letter dated 18.06.2021 was written to Department of Telecommunication, providing the details of 173 IMEI numbers mentioned on the yellow stickers, found during the examination, with a request to provide details thereof so as to ascertain their genuineness. Department of Telecommunication, vide their letter dated 16.07.2021 confirmed that no IMEI certificate had been generated, as on 06.07.2021, from Indian Counterfeited Device Restriction (ICDR) system for the said IMEIs list. (iii) Chartered Engineer, Anoop Kumar Sharma, vide Certificate No. CE/DE-AS/0477/2021- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
