TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and processing) Regulations, 2010 and under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by said order present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellant has not committed any illegality as alleged. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to letter dated 02.12.2021 and 03.01.2023, where the importer Ms. Kajal Thakur, proprietress of M/s. K.T. Technologies submits that due to difficulty to understand the statement, a statement was recorded earlier to the effect that the shipment does not pertain to her. She further confirmed that they only had imported the goods and took assistance from the appellant and others. They have paid due amount to overseas supplier and admitting the alleged illegality, they have agreed to pay differential duty with penalty for the release of goods. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent accepted the same and on payment of duty and penalty on 11.01.2022, proceedings against the importer Ms. Kajal Thakur, proprietress of M/s. K.T. Technologies and others are set aside. The Learned Counsel further submits that as per Section 28(6)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 provisions and the KYC norms. Learned AR further submits that Shri Mujeeb K T, proprietor of M/s. Pigeon International admitted that he has not received any authorization for filing the subject Courier bills of entry from Ms. Kajal Thakur, proprietor of M/s K T Technologies and that the CBEs were filed on "trust" placed on Shri M. Elias, thus, M/s. Pigeon International has contravened the provisions of Regulation 12(i) of Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010. Learned AR further submits that the appellant M/s Pigeon International and co-accused, M/s Orbit Trans Express & Freight pvt. Ltd. had filed the CBEs and had facilitated the import of the shipments of M/s K T Technologies in contravention of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, which they are duty bound to comply. Moreover, appellant has not fulfilled the obliga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, against very same SCN, in addition to the penalty imposed under Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and processing) Regulations, 2010, there was a proposal to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Both the proceedings are separate and reason for invoking penal provisions under the Courier Regulation and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 together is not understood. Thus, once proceedings against the importer is dropped by invoking Section 28(6)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on appellant under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is unsustainable, specially in such a case, where Adjudication authority concluded the proceedings against the importer under Section 28(6)(1) of the Customs Act 1962. With regard to imposition of penalty on Customs Broker, their omission/commission will not attract penalty as their acts are in capacity of facilitator of the customs transactions and they are bound to facilitate the authorized clearance work of importer/exporter. Therefore, the Customs Broker is only facilitating the customs transaction on behalf of principal, (importer/exporter). Therefore, the absence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the courier agent, violation of the Regulation 12(ii) is sustainable as held by the adjudicating authority. 12. Regarding violation of the Regulation 12(iii) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, as per para 48 of the impugned order it is alleged that the appellant had resorted to subletting the license as associated courier, however there is no admissible evidence to that effect. The proprietor of the firm only stated that during Covid period, they have appointed Shri M. Elias as an executive due to his inability to carry out activities in Bangalore, which cannot be considered as subletting and to allege violation of the Regulation 12(iii) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 is not tenable. 13. Regarding violation of the Regulation 12(iv),(v) & (vi) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, the adjudicating authority held that the delivery address of the importer is in Delhi and he has not verified the identity of the client by using reliable, independent document. Considering the finding in ibid, paras, customs a....