Speed Max Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
The appellant, a courier agent registered under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 (CIER), challenged the imposition of a penalty of ₹20 lakh under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case arose when consignments covered under specific MAWB numbers were intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during random examination. The consignments, imported through the appellant as courier agent on behalf of an importer, were found to contain goods originating from Pakistan. The appellant had filed only the Import Manifest based on documents received from the exporter in the UAE, and no Bills of Entry or other clearance documents were filed as the goods were intercepted prior to clearance processing.
The appellant contended that it had no knowledge of the contents or origin of the goods and that no evidence was produced by the Revenue to establish such knowledge. It was also argued that no proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the CIER regulations, indicating absence of any mala fide intent.
The Department maintained that the appellant was involved in the import process and therefore liable for penalty. However, the authority observed that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the appellant had knowledge of the Pakistan origin of the goods. It further noted that the Import Manifest was filed based on exporter-provided documents and that no action under CIER was taken against the appellant.
