TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n India, which requires compliance of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (as amended). The Appellants claim of having on their rolls more than 350 employees. 2.2 Pursuant to grant of registration to act as an Authorized Courier, the Appellants executed bond and furnished security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs, in terms of Regulation 11 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (as amended). 2.3 In/or about Aug-Sep 2014 the officers of the Respondent had undertaken audit of Courier Companies. The clearances handled by the Appellants were also examined. Pursuant to the audit, the following violations of the Couriers Imports & Exports (Clearance) Regulation, 1998 (as amended) are alleged- (i) That the Appellants did not obtain prior permission of Customs to sublet/ outsource any of the components in the door to door supply chain. Thereby violated Regulation 13(j), (ii) That the import and export documents were not filed through a person who has passed the examination referred to in Regulation 8 or 19 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 duly authorised under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as mentioned into your Suspension Order we have not violated any regulation or any rules of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulation, 1998 intentionally or in any way involved in any activities which lead to the violation of regulation mentioned." The Appellants requested for revocation of the Suspension Order, and a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to make further submissions in their defence. 2.7 No further steps for conducting any inquiry appears to have been taken for complying with the directions contained in the Order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 2.8 Only a personal hearing was granted on 09.12.2014, wherein at the outset the submissions contained in the preliminary reply were reiterated and further submissions were also made. The Appellants also offered reverification of the entire details of delivery of shipments available with them in electronic mode. 2.9 The impugned order dated 12.12.2014 was passed thereby not only revoking the registration, but also directing forfeiture of Rs. 10 lakhs submitted by the Appellants as security at the time of registration of the Courier License, for which there was not even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of India, 2015 (316) E.L.T. 651 (Kar. HC), (iii) Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of cus., Delhi zone, 2015 (315) E.L.T. 496 (Del.), Transit Freight Forwarders vs. Commissioner of (iv) Customs, order dated 10.04.2013 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the Writ Petition (C) No. 10280 of 2013, (v) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Thakkar Shipping Agency, 2014 (308) E.L.T. 500 (Tri.Mumbai), (vi) Intercontinental Cargo Services Vs. CC, Delhi, 2012 (279) E.L.T. 524 (Tri. LB), (vii) G.P. Jaiswal vs. CC, Lucknow, 2008 (226) E.L.T. 707(Tri. Del.), (viii) Naresh Jaisingh & 3 Ors. Vs. CC-Gen, Mumbai, 2015-TIOL02707-Cest-Mum, (ix) S. R. Sale U co. vs. CC (General), Mumbai, 2013 (295) E.L.T. 653 (Born.), and (x) A. Vasan & Sons Vs. Union of India, 2009 (238) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.) 5. It is seen that in none of the above decisions relied upon by the Revenue, the question of maintainability was an issue in respect of any Appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority, under Regulation 10 of Courier (Import & Export) Regulations, 1998, which were notified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovides that the Board may make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of "this section and, in particular, such regulations may provide for "the appeals", if any, against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence, and "the period within which such appeal may be filed". Section 146 permits specific provisions for appeals regarding Customs Broker, and therefore, such specific provisions of appeal override the general provisions of the appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. As against this, section 157 confers general power to make regulations, which are required to be made by the Board "consistent with this Act and the rules", No provision under Section 157 provides for any special power and procedure for the appeals or takes away the general statutory right of appeal, in the matter of an Authorized Courier. Hence, the above decisions on issue of maintainability passed in respect of Customs House Agents governed by section 146, are totally inapplicable. We also find merit in the submission made on behalf of the Appellant that although the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulation, 2011, notified by the Board in exercise of powers conferred by Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er passed on representation, there is no merger with the original order as in case of an order passed in an appeal. The representation is not c in derogation of the statutory remedy of appeal. An appeal, if preferred/ has to be decided on its own merits. We have also seen that the said rejection of representation dated 27.01.2015 was made only on 21.1.2016, when the appellant informed the authority about filing of this appeal and about our Order dated 06.01.2016 condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 8. The Impugned Order is passed without causing and completing any inquiry, subsequent to suspension of the Courier License of the Appellants. We also find that the Adjudicating Authority erred in ignoring the offer made by the Appellants of reverification of the entire details of delivery of shipments in electronic mode, and recorded in the impugned order that - "15.4......The submission to produce the records now at this stage cannot be accepted. " Neither any Inquiry Report has been furnished to the Appellant, nor could the Respondent produce any such report before us. Although suspension order was passed 'pending inquiry', and under the Regulations some inquiry was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perational many a times the documents may be required to be filed and processed manually due to any break-down in the electronic server or other unforeseen circumstances. Moreover, even at these places the shift to electronic mode will take place gradually with the launch of pilot project, and till such time automation facilities become fully operational at a place, some consignments may need to be processed manually as may be determined by the jurisdictional Commissioners. 7.1 The existing Authorized Couriers who are registered or transacting business in terms of Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 at locations where automated clearance facilities become operational shall be eligible to file declarations under the electronic mode without any requirement for fresh appointment or fresh intimation, subject to the fulfillment of other conditions or requirements imposed under courier Regulations for the electronic mode. In Short, once a person is registered as an Authorized Courier he can file declarations under both the modes subject to compliance of other requirements of the respective Regulations. 8. These instructions may be brought ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellants subcontracted to sublet / outsource any of the activity / function for the purpose of assessment and clearance of courier parcels. Moreover, even otherwise the alleged outsourcing of last mile delivery of only a few consignments was also through M/s. Blue Dart which is also an Authorized of violation of Regulation 13(j) is therefore erroneous. 14. It is not in dispute that the Appellants had submitted in details as to how they had complied with the KYC verifications in the case of M/s. Smashing and other past clearances. They also informed about the steps taken to even revamp their website. No serious infringement of KYC verification leading to any significant revenue loss was pointed out. even in the Show Cause Notice. We have also seen that the Respondent himself has not considered violation of the KYC norms, as serious enough to merit of suspension in the matter of another courier company M/s. International City Runners (India) Pvt. Ltd vide his Order dated 29.10.2014. The Respondent could not have adopted different yardstick in the case of the appellant. 15. The Appellants have categorically submitted that "G" Pass Holders were available and had submitted ....