TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice; (ii) whether the authorised courier complied with the KYC obligations under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010; (iii) whether Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 required physical verification or screening of consignments and whether the courier's failure in that regard justified the action taken.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice.
Analysis: The inquiry report, the appellant's reply, and the personal hearing were all reflected in the impugned order. Multiple opportunities of hearing were granted and the submissions made were considered before recording findings. The order therefore disclosed compliance with fair procedure and did not suffer from procedural unfairness.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the authorised courier complied with the KYC obligations under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010.
Analysis: The courier was required to verify the identity, antecedents, correctness of particulars, and functioning of its client at the declared address by reliable documents and information, and to exercise due diligence in relation to the consignment. On the facts found, the courier failed to establish effective verification of the consignee in one transaction, while the explanation offered did not displace the adverse findings recorded in the order. The nature of courier operations, involving door-to-door clearance and delivery, reinforced the obligation to know the consignee's correct address and contact details.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iii): Whether Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 required physical verification or screening of consignments and whether the courier's failure in that regard justified the action taken.
Analysis: The obligation was not merely formal. The order relied on the requirement of 100% screening of import and export consignments under the applicable circular, and held that the appellant could not avoid responsibility by asserting that it was prohibited from opening consignments. The goods were found to differ materially from the declared description, quantity, and value, which supported the conclusion that the courier had failed to discharge its regulatory duties with due diligence.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The regulatory violations were sustained, the impugned order was affirmed, and the challenge to forfeiture, penalty, and non-revocation of the licence failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An authorised courier must verify client particulars with due diligence, including identity and address verification, and must ensure the required screening or verification of consignments in accordance with the applicable courier regulations and circulars; failure to do so justifies regulatory action.
TaxTMI 
