Courier agency not penalised for importer's misdeclaration where no collusion or due-diligence breach was proved.

A courier agency was not liable to penalty for the importer's misdeclaration of value where it relied on the shipper's declared value and the Revenue produced no evidence of collusion, abetment, or lack of due diligence. The tribunal found no material showing failure to advise the client under regulation 13(b) or failure to verify the accuracy or completeness of information under regulation 13(c) of the Courier Import & Export (Clearance) Regulation, 1998. The agency's acceptance and declaration of the shipper's value was treated as bona fide, and the penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a courier agency can be penalised under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration of value by the importer when it relied on the shipper's declared value and the Revenue adduced no evidence of collusion or lack of due diligence under regulations 13(b) and 13(c) of the Courier Import & Export (Clearance) Regulation, 1998.

Analysis: The allegation against the courier agency was that it failed to advise the client properly under regulation 13(b) and failed to exercise due diligence to verify the correctness or completeness of the information under regulation 13(c). The records did not show any evidence to substantiate that the appellant had aided or abetted the misdeclaration or otherwise failed in the responsibilities cast upon it. The appellant had accepted and declared the value furnished by the shipper/importer, and this conduct was treated as bona fide. On that basis, the regulatory provisions invoked against the courier agency were held inapplicable to impose penalty for the importer's misdeclaration.

Conclusion: Penalty on the courier agency was not warranted and the appeal succeeded.

---