2025 (8) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Courier Registration Revoked for Misdeclared Shipments and Violations of CIER 2010 Regulations Section 12

The CESTAT upheld the revocation of the appellant's courier registration, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty for violations of ... Revocation of courier registration of the appellant - forefeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - Failure of the authorized courier to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under Regulation 11 - Failure of the authorized courier to comply with any of the provisions of the Regulations - Mis-conduct on the part of the Authorized Courier whether within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner or anywhere else, which in the opinion for the Commissioner - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, in this case, the goods declared in the courier Bill of Entry did not match the invoices pasted on the cartons. It is not unreasonable for the officers to presume that the goods were intended to be delivered to the consignees. The courier should not only ensure that the consignee exists but, it is in its own interest to ensure that the consignee agrees to pay the appropriate duty of customs. When the goods were examined, they were found to be different from what was declared from the MAWB and HAWB and courier Bill of Entry - Not only were the goods different from what was declared, the consignees also either had not existed at all as was evident from the return of the letters by the postal authorities or the consignees existed but they had never ordered the goods. The appellant filed benami courier Bills of Entry to smuggle electronic goods under the garb of various miscellaneous goods of household items. The submission of the appellant is that it had a limited role in dealing with the imported consignments and could not have opened the packages or dealt with the imported goods in any manner except as directed by the Customs Officers cannot be accepted. The responsibility of the appellant was to present the imported goods to the Proper Officer for inspection, examination and assessment if so required before paying the customs duty and delivering the consignments to the importers. It is also the submission of the appellant that the investigation is based on the statements of the appellant which were contradictory and that the appellant had an unblemished track record before this incident. The appellant had not obtained authorization from the consignees, it is evident that it had not advised any of the consignees and, in fact, the consignees either did not exist or had not ordered the goods. The appellant admittedly was not in possession of the KYC documents. Therefore, there are no hesitation in holding that the appellant had violated Regulation 12(1) (iv), (iii), (iv) of CIER 2010 - The appellant had also not exercised due diligence in providing the complete information to the customs authorities. The least that could have been expected from the appellant is to give the correct identity of the consignees. There is no doubt that the appellant had violated the Regulations 12(1)(v) of CIER 2010 - there are no good reason to differ from the finding of the Commissioner that the appellant had violated Regulation 12(1)(vii) of CIER 2010. The appellant did not abide by all the provisions of the Regulation which would result in violation of Regulation 12(1)(x) of CIER 2010 - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - the impugned order is upheld - appeal dismissed. ISSUES: Whether the authorized courier violated the conditions of the bond and provisions of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulation, 2010 (CIER 2010) by filing benami courier Bills of Entry and mis-declaring goods.Whether failure to obtain authorization from consignees or consignors as required under Regulation 12(i) of CIER 2010 constitutes grounds for suspension or revocation of courier registration.Whether the courier's failure to verify the antecedents, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC), and identity of clients as mandated by Regulation 12(iv) amounts to violation justifying revocation.Whether non-compliance with obligations to advise consignors/consignees to comply with customs laws and to bring non-compliance to the notice of customs authorities under Regulation 12(iii) is a violation warranting cancellation.Whether failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain correctness and completeness of information submitted to customs under Regulation 12(v) is a breach of regulatory duties.Whether withholding information relating to assessment and clearance of goods from assessing officers under Regulation 12(vii) is established.Whether the cumulative violations amount to non-abidance with all provisions of the Act and regulations under Regulation 12(x), justifying revocation, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty.Whether the appellant's limited role as courier and absence of direct knowledge or intent to commit fraud absolves it from liability under the regulations. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The authorized courier violated Regulations 12(i), 12(iii), 12(iv), 12(v), 12(vii), and 12(x) of CIER 2010 by filing benami courier Bills of Entry without obtaining requisite authorization from consignees or consignors and mis-declaring goods as household articles while actually importing electronic goods.Failure to obtain authorization from consignees or consignors as required under Regulation 12(i) was established by the undisputed fact that letters sent to consignees were returned undelivered or denied receipt of goods, and the appellant admitted no authorization was obtained.The appellant did not verify antecedents, correctness of IEC, or identity of clients as mandated by Regulation 12(iv), evidenced by absence of KYC documents and failure to conduct independent verification.The courier failed to advise consignors or consignees to comply with customs laws and did not bring non-compliance to customs authorities as required under Regulation 12(iii).The appellant did not exercise due diligence under Regulation 12(v) to ascertain correctness and completeness of information submitted to customs, as admitted in statements during investigation.Withholding of information related to assessment and clearance of imported goods under Regulation 12(vii) was established by mis-declaration of goods and use of benami Bills of Entry.The cumulative violations constituted non-abidance with the provisions of the Act and regulations under Regulation 12(x), justifying revocation of courier registration, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty.The appellant's limited role and lack of direct knowledge or intent to commit fraud did not absolve it of responsibility, given the principal-agent relationship and regulatory obligations imposed on authorized couriers. RATIONALE: The Court applied the regulatory framework under the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulation, 2010, specifically Regulation 12, which imposes strict obligations on authorized couriers as agents of importers to ensure compliance with customs laws, including obtaining authorization, verifying client identity, exercising due diligence, and full disclosure to customs authorities.The Court distinguished the role of an authorized courier from that of a customs broker, emphasizing that couriers act as agents who pay customs duty on behalf of importers and deliver goods, necessitating knowledge and verification of consignees.The Court relied on factual findings that consignments were mis-declared, consignees were non-existent or denied ordering goods, and the appellant admitted lack of authorization and KYC verification, establishing violations of multiple regulatory provisions.The Court rejected the appellant's contention that it had no control over the contents and limited role, holding that the principal-agent relationship and regulatory duties require couriers to ensure authenticity and compliance.The Court distinguished the present case from precedent where the courier had obtained genuine KYC documents and acted without knowledge of mis-declaration, noting that in the present case, the appellant engaged in willful disregard of regulatory requirements for financial gain.No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.