TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... For this purpose, the courier has to obtain a registration under Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulation, 2010 CIER 2010. These regulations require the courier to follow some guidelines. As per regulation 13 of CIER 2010, the registration to operate his courier may be suspended or the courier may be de-registered on any of the following grounds: (a) Failure of the authorized courier to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under Regulation 11; (b) Failure of the authorized courier to comply with any of the provisions of the Regulations; or (c) Mis-conduct on the part of the Authorized Courier whether within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner or anywhere else, which in the opinion for the Commissioner, renders him unfit transact any business in the Customs airport. 3. The appellant was registered as authorized courier by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi and was allowed to transact business at new courier terminal IGI Airport, New Delhi. The Commissioner received an offence report from the Joint Commissioner, Air Cargo Export Commissionerate New Delhi on 15.07.2021 stating that a large quan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puty Commissioner of Customs; Regulation 12 (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. Regulation 12 (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; Regulation 12 (vii): not withhold any information relating to assessment and clearance of imported goods or of export goods, from the Assessing Officer; Regulation 12 (x): abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations, notifications and orders issued there under. 5. The appellant contested the proposals in the SCN. However, in the impugned order the Commissioner held that the appellant had violated Regulations 12(i),(iii),(iv),(v),(vii)and(x) and cancelled the registration of the appellant, forfeited the security deposit and imposed a penalty. 6. We have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shiv Shankar, learned aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 8. Shri Shiv Shankar, learned authorized representative appearing for the department vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted as follows: (i) Regulation 12(1)(iii) of CBLR, 2010 requires the courier to obtain an authorization for each of the consignees or consignors of the imported goods for whom or from whom such courier imported the goods. On the basis of such authorization, the courier acts as an agent of the importer and files courier Bills of Entry. The appellant had filed courier Bill of Entry without authorization. When letters were sent by the Customs to the consignees either such letters were returned undelivered or replies were received from the consignees that they never ordered such goods. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant filed benami courier Bills of Entry for goods without any authorization. In the statement of Shri Hrushikesh Mohanty, Director of the appellant recorded on 02.07.2021, he confirmed that no authorization was obtained by the appellant. Therefore, the factual position is that the appellant had not obtained any authorization from the consignee or the consignor and the consignees wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egulations and notifications and orders issued thereunder. In his submission dated 02.07.2021 Mr. Mohanty, the Director of the authorized courier admitted to engaging in these practices under influence of Shri Sadik from Dubai and driven by the desire to earn quick profits during COVID-19 pandemic. He also explained that he and Mr. Mahinder were involved in managing and subsequently destroying proofs of delivery and that they conspired to mis-declare mobile phones as household goods for financial profits. This clearly is in violation of Regulation 12(1)(x). (vii) In view of above the appellants were not compliance with the key regulations under CIER 2010 which cannot be condoned especially given its admitted actions of willfully ignoring the regulatory requirements for financial gain. The decision to the revoke the licence is based on the severity of the breach, which poses significant risk to the integrity of the customs process and revenue collection. Therefore, the impugned order is correct and calls for no interference. 9. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. 10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant had imported goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the consignee exists but, it is in its own interest to ensure that the consignee agrees to pay the appropriate duty of customs. When the goods were examined, they were found to be different from what was declared from the MAWB and HAWB and courier Bill of Entry. 13. Not only were the goods different from what was declared, the consignees also either had not existed at all as was evident from the return of the letters by the postal authorities or the consignees existed but they had never ordered the goods. 14. Evidently, the electronic goods which were actually found were attempted to be smuggled into India under the cover of fake baggage declaration as household goods. 15. In short, the appellant filed benami courier Bills of Entry to smuggle electronic goods under the garb of various miscellaneous goods of household items. The submission of the appellant is that it had a limited role in dealing with the imported consignments and could not have opened the packages or dealt with the imported goods in any manner except as directed by the Customs Officers cannot be accepted. The responsibility of the appellant was to present the imported goods to the Proper Officer for inspe....