TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.6.2019. 2. The main allegations in the Show Cause Notice are summarized as below: i) Intelligence was received by the Department that the Courier operators at Trivandrum international Airport were importing non-bonafide unaccompanied baggage and goods intended for trade/business and clearing the same in the guise of bonafide gifts availing the benefit of Notification No.171/93 Cus dated16.09.1993 read with Courier lmport & Export (Clearance) Regulations,1998(CIECR) thus causing huge loss to the exchequer in terms of customs duty. ii) On the basis of this intelligence and inspection/verification was ordered and in order to verify the existence and genuineness of the consignees for whom such imports were stated to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Act, 1962. vi) It was found that the records were falsified and the documents were fabricated and willful mis-declarations were made to the effect that the goods were bona fide gifts sent by various persons residing abroad to their relatives in India whereas the goods were actually consigned by the same person abroad in the name of various fictitious and bogus persons in India in order to fraudulently avail of the benefit of duty exemption extended to bona fide gifts under Notification No. 171 /1993 Customs dated 16.9.1993 read with the provisions of Regulation 3(d) of the CIECR, 1998. The consignee addresses were all bogus and the goods were cleared and handed over to the agent of the consignor in India. The above action of illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not sustainable in terms of Regulation 11 of CIECR 1998 and CIECR. Since the department has not produced any record or any evidence to show that the efforts have been made to recover the duty from the importer and no effort has to be made to recover the the duty from the importer and only when such effort fails, the appellant can be asked to pay the duty. 5. The learned A.R. would submit that the appellants did not fulfill the obligations under CIECR. They were required to get an authorization post import from the consignees at the time of delivery which they did not do; the regulations clearly provided that the work cannot sub-contracted or entrusted to some one else ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the statement was recorded from the appellants representative, he admitted that the delivery work was entrusted to an agent and he did not give any details or indicate that such authorization was obtained from the consignees at the time of delivery. He did not even confirm that they had asked such agents to collect such authorization. Not a single authorization has been produced before the investigating officers or before the Commissioner at the time of adjudication. There is not even a claim that such an authorisation has been collected. Therefore it becomes very clear that in the absence of post facto authorization, the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant has to be considered as filed without any aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her he has imported or not. 8. Even though several decisions were relied upon by the appellants, on going through all of them briefly, we find that in none of them the facts were similar to the facts before us for consideration today. This being the position, the decisions cited by the learned counsel are of no help. 9. The learned counsel submitted that because the courier license was not renewed by the Commissioner and because of the various problems faced by them and in view of the fact that the appellant did not earn any profits during the operations, the appellants have closed down the business and have no money to pay the duty even if it is held to be payabl....