TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on behalf of a consignee or consignor at Customs airports. Whenever any goods are imported through courier instead of the normal procedure in which the importer or a Customs Broker files a bill of entry for the imported goods, in courier imports, the authorized courier or his agent files an electronic manifest of the imported goods prior to its arrival with the proper officer in express cargo manifest - import (ECM - I) form. The courier packages containing the imported goods cannot be dealt with in any manner except as directed by the Commissioner of Customs and no person shall, except with the permission of proper officer, open any packages of imported goods. The authorized courier shall present the imported goods to the proper officer for inspection, screening, examination and assessment. Thereafter, the authorized courier pays the import duty, if any, applicable on the imported goods and after clearance by the customs delivers the goods to the consignees and collects the customs duties from them. 3. Since this is a sensitive job involving clearance of imported goods, the permission to operate as courier for import and export goods requires registration which is granted after e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs; (iv) verify the antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) Number, identity of his client and the functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; (v) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods; (vi) not withhold information communicated to him by an officer of customs, relating to assessment and clearance of imported goods as well as inspection, examination and Clearance of export goods, from a consignor or consignee who is entitled to such information; (vii) not withhold any information relating to assessment and clearance of imported goods or of export goods, from the Assessing Officer; (viii) not attempt to influence the conduct of any officer of Customs in any matter pending before such officer or his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation, duress or offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Customs shall, after providing the opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, dispose of the representation as expeditiously as may be possible. 14. Penalty. - An Authorised Courier, who contravenes any of the provisions of these regulations or abets such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of these regulations with which it was his obligation to comply, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. 5. The appellant filed declarations in respect of the following airway bills. S.No. HAWB No. Importer's name Description of the goods found during examination No. of pairs 1 86575442519 M/s. B S Imports Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 2 86575442140 M/s. B S Imports Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 3 86575442559 M/s. B S Imports Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 4 86575442563 M/s. B S Imports Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 5 86575442517 M/s. B S Imports Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 6 86575442553 M/s. B S Imports Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 7 86575442558 M/s. Legend Creations Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 8 86575442564 M/s. Legend Creations Nike Zoom Pegasus 33 30 9 86575442510 M/s. Legend Creations Nike Zoom Pegas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant firm was recorded wherein he inter-alia stated that he was well conversant with the rules and procedures related to import and export; that he knew that a case of mis-declaration had been booked; that his company had filed Bills of Entry with the description of goods as "sample shoes‟ whereas on examination the consignment was found to be of commercial quantity of shoes; and that he was shown the statement of Balvinder Singh who had accepted having mis-declared the goods. He further said that it was a case of mis-declaration on the part of importer and that the Bills of Entry has been filed on the basis of the documents provided by the shippers and submitted signed copies of Bills of Entry in respect of the 15 airway bills pertaining to the case. 9. Further statement of Mehta was recorded on 10/03/2018 in which he said that he would get copies of manifest, invoices and KYC by E-mail. He disputed the statements of Rajeev Kumar Chadha of M/s Legend Creations and Ram Kumar Gupta of Personal Creations that they did not import the goods. On being asked about how he got the necessary documents, such as, manifest, invoice and KYC to file the bills of entry, he said t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in Regulation ......" 13. The Adjudicating Authority further held that the authorized courier being a key person between the customs officers and the importer/exporter has a very similar role to play to that of the CHA and rejected the appellant‟s argument that they had obtained the KYC. 14. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act. 15. It needs to be pointed out that as per Regulation 13(2), the appellant could have represented to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, if aggrieved. However, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 129A has not been restricted with respect to these Regulations. 16. We, therefore, proceed to decide this appeal. 17. This appeal is filed on the following grounds: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he has confessed to the crime. Nothing in his statement or in the statement of the appellant or of anyone else suggests that they were aware of the nature of the goods; and (d) Regulation 12(1)(v) requires the appellant to "exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods". They had verified the KYC documents which were received, though through Balvinder Singh, but under the cover of letters of the three importer firms. They have verified the KYC documents. Thereafter, when the invoices were received along with imported goods they have filed bills of entry as per the invoices which were received. They had no mechanism whatsoever of checking whether the invoices which were received match with the imported goods or otherwise. This can only be known when the imported consignments are opened, examined and compared with the invoices. The appellant had no authority to do this; only the proper officer could do that and he did. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant has not exercised due dilige....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. In other words, he needs to verify whether the importer actually exists or otherwise which is part of the due diligence process. In this case, the appellant received the KYC documents of all the three alleged importers under the cover of their letters but they were received through Balvinder Singh. Having received the documents, the appellant verified the KYC documents and found the importers to be genuine. There is no dispute that all the three importers in whose name the imports were made exist. 22. The second set of documents which the appellant received is in the form of invoices along with the consignments. These are received from the overseas exporter. Based on these documents, the appellant filed declarations with the customs. On investigation, customs officers found that the shoes which were imported were counterfeit Nike shoes. The fact that they were counterfeit was ascertained after an expert evaluation by Nike Creations, the brand holder. It is inconceivable that somebody could have, without opening the packages understood that contents were counterfeit shoes. It would have been impossible for the appellant or even the customs officers or even for the experts to ....