2018 (2) TMI 686 - AT - Customs

Penalty upheld for drug smuggling via courier service under Customs Act regulations.

The penalty of &8377; 1,00,000 imposed on the appellants for smuggling narcotic drugs through a courier service, in violation of Customs Act ... Penalty u/s 114 (i) of the CA 1962 - main allegation alleged against the appellant is that the appellant failed to ensure that proper authorization was taken from Shri Okora Wisdom before accepting the consignment from their co-loader M/s. DPEX Worldwide Express Pvt. Ltd. for export to Indonesia - Held that: - Since it is brought out from the evidence that the shipping bill did not contain the signature of the exporter authorizing the export of the goods /reading books. It is very clear that there has been contravention of law of Customs Act by the appellant - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Allegation of failure to check documents and shipping bill2. Smuggling of narcotic drugs through courier service3. Violation of Customs Act regarding proper authorization4. Imposition of penalty under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962Analysis:1. The case involved the appellants filing a courier Shipping Bill for export, intercepted due to suspicions of containing narcotic drugs. The parcel, initially declared as reading books, was found to contain a narcotic drug. The Show Cause Notice alleged the appellants failed to ensure proper authorization and document verification. The penalty of &8377; 1,00,000/- imposed was challenged on the grounds of high amount and contravention of Regulation 13 (a) of Courier Imports and Exports Regulations.2. The respondent argued that the smuggling of narcotic drugs was detected due to interception by the Air cargo Intelligence unit. The appellant was accused of concealing the drugs in the parcel under the guise of exporting reading books. The absence of the exporter's signature on the shipping bill indicated a violation. The involvement of various courier service agents in the drug smuggling racket was highlighted, justifying the penalty imposed on the appellant.3. The appellant contested the penalty under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, claiming the failure to obtain proper authorization from the exporter was the main allegation. The absence of the exporter's signature on the shipping bill was considered a clear contravention of the Customs Act. Given the gravity of smuggling narcotic drugs, the judgment concluded that leniency was unwarranted. The penalty of &8377; 1,00,000/- was upheld, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and dismissing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of failure to verify documents, smuggling of narcotic drugs, violation of Customs Act regulations, and the imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.