2024 (5) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aluru. Alleging that the appellant had abetted M/s. KT Technologies, New Delhi to import goods through Bengaluru Airport by mis-eclaring the value, proceedings were initiated and adjudication authority as per impugned order revoked the license, enforced the Bond and Bank guarantee. In addition to a of penalty Rs.50,000/- each was imposed on appellant under Regulation 14 of the Courier Import and Export (Electronic Declaration and processing) Regulation, 2010 and under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the impugned order present appeal is filed. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any illegality as alleged. The entire allegation regarding non....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne India Vs. CC, New Delhi -2018 (363) E.L.T. 1011 (Tri.-Del.) 3) H.B. Cargo Services Vs. CC, Hyderabad -2010(261) E.L.T. 540 (Tri.- Bang.) 4) Manjunatha Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore. -2021(375) E.L.T.245 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for Revenue reiterated the finding and drew our attention to the findings in the impugned order and submits that there was a gross mis-declaration in the classification, description, quantity, duty etc., in the bills of entries filed for the said consignments which were intercepted. The shipments were not only filed without proper KYC verifications and authorization of the importer, but were delivered to Mr. Elias, which is in total violation of the extant legal provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Customs Act, 1962, it can be invoked only where no express penalty is elsewhere provided for such contravention or failure. However, in the present proceedings penalty is proposed by invoking penal provisions under Regulation 14 of the Courier Import and Export (Electronic Declaration and processing) Regulation, 2010. Thus, invoking the penal provision under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is unsustainable. With regard to imposition of penalty on appellant, omission/commission of the importer will not attract penalty as they act in the capacity of a facilitator of the customs transactions and they are duty bound to facilitate the authorized clearance work of importer/exporter. Therefore, as the appellant is only facilitating th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t using a dummy and bogus importer is unsustainable. Regarding violation of the Regulation 12(i) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, said allegation is made on the ground that the appellant has not received any authorization for filing the courier bills of entry. However, while submitting reply to show cause notice, appellant submits that the importer is identified and appellant had caried out KYC verification such as IEC and GST registration as per information provided by Mr. Ajit. Moreover, the appellant produced Email communication as proof of authorization and thereby complied with the KYC verification. The absence of any provision which mandate receipt of KYC directly by courier....