Case Law Details
Fle Fast Line Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Since authorized courier was prohibited from opening and verifying contents of imported consignments and it had not violated Regulation 12(1)(v) and therefore, revocation of the registration and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 13(1) and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 could not be sustained.
Held: Assessee was an authorized courier under the Regulations. These Regulations apply to assessment and clearance of imported or export goods carried by an authorized courier by air on behalf of a consignee or consignor at Customs airports. Whenever any goods are imported through courier instead of the normal procedure in which the importer or a Customs Broker files a bill of entry for the imported goods, in courier imports, the authorized courier or his agent files an electronic manifest of the imported goods prior to its arrival with the proper officer in express cargo manifest – import (ECM – I) form. The authorized courier paid the import duty, if any, applicable on the imported goods and after clearance by the customs delivered the goods to the consignees and collected the customs duties from them. The declared goods were “Sample Shoes‟ and every airway bill had 30 pairs totalling 450 pairs. Information was received by customs authorities that branded shoes were being imported by some importers in the guise of “sample shoes‟ in association with assessee. So, they opened and examined the above 15 consignments of shoes of 30 pairs each and seized them under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Subsequent investigations showed that these were counterfeit goods and, therefore, they were confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 for violation of intellectual property rights of the brand owner M/s. Nike. Therefore, a suspension cum show cause notice dated 29/11/2018 was issued to assessee. The Adjudicating Authority revoked the licence and forfeited the security deposit under Regulation 13(1), and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Regulation 14. It was held that assessee received the KYC documents of all the three alleged importers under the cover of their letters but they were received through Balvinder Singh. The only fault of assesssee was that instead of receiving the KYC documents directly from the hands of the owners, it received the documents with covering letters handed over by Balvinder Singh. This action of assessee did not constitute not exercising due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submitted to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods as required under Regulation 12(1)(v). From the facts of this case, it was found that the importers were genuine importers and they existed; the KYC documents were not fake; the Bills of Entry were filed as per the invoices; there is no evidence that the appellant was aware of the real contents of the consignments; the appellant had no authority to even open and verify the contents of the imported consignments; and there was no evidence that assessee was aware that the goods were actually imported by Balvinder Singh and not by the importers declared in the invoices. Therefore, assessee had not violated Regulation 12(1)(v) and therefore, revocation of the registration and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 13(1) and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 could not be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
P.V. SUBBA RAO
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
