TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntravention of provisions of Regulations 12(1)(i), 12(1(iii), 12(1)(iv), 12(1)(v), 12(1)(vii) & 12(1)(x) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 and revoke the Courier Registration DEL/POL/COUR/15/2018 dated 31.10.2018 valid up to 29.10.2020 (PAN-BQJPK5725N) issued to them, in terms of Regulation 13(1) of CIER, 2010. (ii) I order for forfeiture of security amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) deposited by M/s Sitex International, at the time of issue/renewal of their Courier Registration, for contravention of provisions of Regulations 12(1)(i), 12(1)(iii), 12(1)(iv), 12(1)(v), 12(1)(vii), & 12(1)(x) of the CIER, 2010 in terms of Regulation 13(1) of the CIER, 2010. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on M/s Sitex International, under the provisions of Regulation 14 of CIER, 2010." 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorised representative for the Revenue and have perused the records. 3. Goods can be imported or exported through the normal channels such as by air or ship or through couriers. If goods are imported through normal channel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 37 courier bills of entry in the name of the appellant firm declaring the imported goods as household items. The matter was investigated and it was found that 37 names of the consignees in the bills of entry were wrong. These 37 "consignees" had earlier imported some goods through the appellant and, therefore, the appellant had their details including their KYC documents. Using these details, goods were imported in the name of these 37 consignees all of who confirmed that the goods did not belong to them. Investigation revealed that the entire consignment belonged to one Shri Mukesh Rana who engaged the appellant to clear the goods. Statement of Shri Azarouddin Ansari was recorded by the officers on 14.10.2019 who confirmed that he had filed the bills of entry for the 37 consignments and that they had full knowledge that the imported goods were commercial goods and not household goods as declared on the Bills of Entry. He further stated that Shri Mukesh Rana had contacted him and offered Rs. 200/- per kg. to clear these goods in the guise of household goods whereas for clearance of usual household goods they get only Rs. 53/- per kg. He further clarified that he would hand over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and Shri Mukesh Rana arranged 37 different names and addresses of consignors and consignees through Sitex International (the appellant) and sent those details to him at his Dubai office. He actually does not know any of these consignors or consignees. However, the documents were prepared accordingly, and addresses were affixed accordingly on the cartons in the names and addresses provided by Shri Mukesh Rana. On being asked about the payment for the goods to the foreign supplier, he said that he had sent the goods through his own Dubai based company and did not pay any amount to his company for the goods. He further confirmed them that he does not have any FSSAI registration for the imported goods. 9. After completing the investigation and following due process, the order-in-original dated 28.2.2020 was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs whereby the goods were confiscated the duty was re-assessed and penalties were imposed upon Shri Anmol Krishna Murthy who claimed to be the owner of the goods. 10. This order of the Additional Commissioner formed the basis for the present proceedings against the appellant under the Regulations and the issue of the impugned ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ix) Without prejudice to the above submissions, the regulations do not provide for forfeiture of the security deposit. (x) Revocation proceedings are very harsh which effect the livelihood of the appellant who has been out of work more than one year or above. Therefore, a lenient approach must be taken. (xi) The appellant was not granted opportunity to defend the case by the inquiry officer against which the appellant filed written complaint to the learned Commissioner. 12. Learned counsel relies on the following case laws: (i) Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Mumbai [2017 (357) ELT 420 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; (ii) Commissioner Vs. V.B. Bhatia & Co. [2008 (224) ELT A97 (Bom.)]; (iii) Patel on Board Courier Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2003 (151) ELT 399 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; (iv) Commissioner Vs. Bharat Overseas Communicators [2015 (322) ELT A325 (Bom.)]; (v) Daroowalla Bros. & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2016 (333) ELT 182 (Tri.-Mumbai)]; (vi) Killick Air Courier & Forwarders Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Mumbai [1998 (97) ELT 182 (Tribunal)]; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o with nor any knowledge of the imports. The appellant had in its possession the details of these people which it misused. The real owner of the goods was Shri Anmol Krishna Murthy who, in his statement, admitted that the details of the consignors and consignees indicated in the bills of entry and on the cartons were provided to him by Shri Azarouddin Kadar of the appellant firm. Based on these details, he exported the goods to India through his own firm in Dubai in the names of these consignees who had nothing to do with the consignments. As per his statement, he hired Shri Mukesh Rana to get the goods cleared and paid Rs.250/- per kg for his services including the customs duty. Shri Mukesh Rana, in turn, contacted Shri Azarouddin Kadar of the appellant firm who provided the names and details of consignors and consignees and accordingly, the goods were shipped. However, since the imports were made through courier, the appellant firm itself has to file the courier of bills of entry for clearance of goods and after clearance deliver the goods to the consignees. Shri Krishna Murthy said all goods were to be delivered to him in Dwarka at his place. Shri Mukesh Rana also confirmed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ragraph 4.2 of the order-in-original of the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 28.2.2020 which is relied upon document for the present proceedings. Thus, we do not accept the proposition that the appellant cannot be penalised for the action of its employee, both for the reason that as the principal the appellant is responsible for the action committed by its own employee and also for the reason that nature of the imports were fully within the knowledge of the proprietor of the appellant itself. Learned counsel had laid emphasis on the Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. We find that the facts of that case were different as it has been recorded in paragraph 7.1 of that order that the appellant has denied any knowledge of the alleged conspiracy and offence committed by certain persons, which included some employees of the appellant. This lack of knowledge was not in dispute in that case. In other words, that was clearly a case where the appellant had no knowledge whatsoever of the fraud committed in that case. The present case, is quite different as the appellant had full knowledge that commercial goods were being imported in the Master Airway bill, but instead bills of entry were filed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the provisions of the Act, rules and regulations made thereunder and in case of non-compliance thereof to bring the matter to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs. In this case the real consignee Shri Krishna Murthy (through Shri Mukesh Rana) has imported the goods in the name of other consignees by mis-declaring them as household goods. The appellant has not only NOT advised the consignee to follow the rules but has actually facilitated violation of the rules and also circumventing the statutory requirement of obtaining IEC for imports in commercial quantities and violating the mandatory requirement of FSSAI for import of foods supplements by providing details of consignors and consignees in whose names unbeknownst to them, the goods could be imported. 21. Regulation 12(1)(iv) requires an authorised courier to verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC number, identity of his client and the functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, date or information. In the normal course, this would be easy for any courier because it has to finally deliver the goods by itself at the declar....