TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licted is disproportionate to the allegations and that the impugned order dated 21.02.2014 was beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts for considering the controversy in the present petition are as under: 3.1 The petitioner is one of the authorised couriers operating at the New Courier Terminal (NCT). The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner not be held responsible for contravention of Regulation 13(a), 13(g) & 13(j) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearances) Regulations, 1998 (hereafter '1998 Regulations') and why the petitioner's registration under the 1998 Regulations be not revoked. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were that the petitioner had not been submitting the authorisations for delivery of the consignments to the consignees and further, the signatures appearing on several authorisations appeared to be similar, which indicated that the signatures on the authorisations were forged/fabricated. In addition, it was alleged that petitioner had availed of the services of another courier without any prior permission of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been committed by its manager whose services had since been terminated. It was further submitted that the violations were procedural violations and there was no case of evasion of duties or smuggling of goods. 3.6 After hearing the petitioner, the Chief Commissioner of Customs concluded that the action taken against the petitioner was warranted. The relevant extract of the said decision is as under:- "17. I find that the applicant company had cleared 308 consignments covered under 40 Bills of Entry during the period of 16th October, 2012 to 31st October, 2012. They did not submit authorization certificates in respect of any of the consignees. They only submitted delivery certificates and that too in respect of 16 consignments only. In respect of remaining consignments even delivery certificates were not submitted. This raises serious doubts not only about the genuinity of the consignees but even about the delivery of the consignments. The violations are not merely procedural in nature as pleaded by the applicant company but are serious in nature having/involving revenue implications. The charges also include manipulation of documents and forging/fabrication of signatures and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court with clean hands. The details of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of clearing goods under fictitious names has not been disclosed. Although, the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 refers to show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner (Exports) for denial of benefit of notification no.154/94-CUS dated 13.07.1994. The relevant facts pertaining to the said proceedings have not been mentioned in the writ petition. 8. Apparently, the allegations against the petitioner are not merely procedural but serious as the genuineness of the consignees is in doubt. The least that was required of the petitioner was to, candidly, disclose the nature of all allegations made against the petitioner. However, even though the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 refers to other proceedings, the petitioner has carefully ensured that the writ petition is bereft of any details as to the other proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner in respect of the consignments purportedly delivered by the petitioner. The writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. Since it is alleged that the petitioner had violated Regulation 13(a), 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e. the authorization certificate and the delivery certificate. Therefore if given an opportunity, the Noticee will be able to furnish to you the concerned documents." This also indicates that the petitioner had failed to perform its obligation under Section 13(a) of the 1998 Regulations. 11. I am also not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he did not have sufficient opportunity to meet the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 contained an allegation that the petitioner had not been submitting authorisations which were statutorily required. It was further alleged that the signatures on delivery proofs of consignments imported were forged/fabricated and the petitioner had sublet delivery of goods to another courier without prior permission as required. The impugned order dated 17.06.2014 had further specifically noted that the petitioner had not submitted authorisation certificates in respect of 40 bills of entries during the period 16.10.2012 to 31.10.2012. The allegation with respect to non-submission of authorisation certificates had been indicated in the show cause notice. In addition, the imports made by the ....