TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agency for imports by two entities namely M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya and M/s Mangalmurti Traders (hereinafter, 'the importers'). All the documents including the bills of entry, invoices, etc., were submitted by the Appellant with the Customs Department for clearance of the imported goods. 5. The Customs Department, thereafter, alleged that there was misdeclaration by the Appellant in the said consignment of imported goods in terms of quantity, value, description and classification which led to a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') being issued to the importers, as also to the Appellant, which was the courier agency involved in the import of the said consignments. 6. The said show cause notice-cum-suspension order was issued on 27th November 2020 and the Appellant's operations were initially suspended with immediate effect i.e. from the same date itself. An inquiry was conducted and pursuant to a report dated 13th January 2021, the Appellant was found not guilty. 7. Thereafter, vide Order-in-Original dated 5th February 2021, the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) held that the Appellant had abided by all provisions of the Acts and the Rules, Regulations, Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt Ltd. (PAN No. AAFCEO636C); (ii) I forfeit the security submitted at the time of issuance of the courier Registration No. DEL/POL/COUR/18/2018-19 valid upto 04.03.2031 of M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt Ltd. (PAN No. AAFCE0636C); (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt Ltd., the Authorized Courier." 11. As can be seen from the above order dated 18th August, 2023, the courier registration of the Appellant was revoked for the entire term, i.e. till 4th March, 2031. In addition, the security of Rs.10 lakh submitted by Appellant at the time of its courier registration was forfeited and an additional penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. 12. This order was challenged by the Appellant before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT'), vide Custom Appeal No.55524/2023. The said appeal has been dismissed by CESTAT vide final order dated 22nd March, 2024 in the following terms: "14. Coming to the allegations of appellant involvement viz-a-viz his connivance with the importers and concealment of relevant information from department and lack of due ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of BCD. (v) All of the importers in their statements as well as Shri Dagar have stated that the Courier Company, i.e. M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd., files the CBEs and decides the CTH. This is the basic role of a courier who acts on behalf of customs department to correctly declare the CTH of goods for the correct assessment of duty. In this era of self-declaration, such deliberate act is a serious breach of trust and is of serious concern. (vi) The courier had been asked to submit invoices in respect of the previous clearances made by the two importers. The invoices submitted by the courier during the investigation were different from those were uploaded on the system clearly indicating that the invoices were spurious and were actually prepared at the end of the courier only. (vii) The authorizations in respect of two importers submitted by the Courier too appeared to be forged as evident from the statements of Shri Gulshan and Shri Kripa Shankar. The authorizations were taken from the importers only after the seizure of impugned imported goods was made by SIIB. The authorized courier completely failed to exercise due diligence in ascertainin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date in the said authorization letter ; (b) to advised consignors and consignee to comply with the regulations ; (c) G card holder of the appellant's employee were well aware of the entire impugned arrangement. The appellant is bound by the act of its agent and was under obligation to make the consignees aware all the relevant provisions ; (d) appellant has failed to verify antecedent and correctness of Import Export Code (IEC). There is admission of representatives of the appellant that they were well aware about Mr. Anoop to be the actual importer and that IEC code does not belong to him ; (e) despite having complete information about spurious/ counterfeit goods to have been imported by way of two different consignments after wrongly declaring the same the fact was not brought to the notice of the proper officer. 18. Also appellant was well aware that master Airway Bill is common for import of same number of consignments (174) being imported by two different importers/at consignees situated at two different and distant locations. Appellant concealed the said vital information. 19. The appellant's main contention is the inquiry report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d courier. The data suggested that there were as many as 20 consignments which had been imported by M/s Mangalmurti Traders out of which 19 had been cleared from NCT Delhi and as many as 11 consignments have been imported by M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya out of which 10 had been cleared through the same authorized courier, M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 20. Thus moot question of authenticity of authorizations and invoices especially the manipulation of dates was not before the adjudicating authority at the time of order dated 05.02.2021. the order of setting aside alleged violation of CIER by appellant was thus passed due to lack of evidence at that time. Hence, in the light of subsequent evidence against appellant we find no reason to different from the findings in the impugned order under challenge (order-in-original dated 18.08.2023). 21. All these observations are sufficient for us to hold that the appellant has violated Regulation 12 and the respective sub-regulations of CIER 2010. We affirm the findings arrived at in the order under challenge w.r.t. each sub-clause of Regulation 12 of CIER. Resultantly we uphold the order under challenge. As a consequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid importers were related to an employee of the Appellant and were in fact found to be one of the real brothers of Mr. Kripa Shankar Maurya. 19. Moreover, the CESTAT has also taken into consideration the communication dated 12th March, 2021 given by Apple Inc. where it was stated as under:- "13. We further observe that Right holder, Apple Inc. vide their letter dated 12.03.2021 has submitted as follows :- (i) the stickers bearing the Apple word mark are counterfeit and found to be in violation of IPR. (ii) the IMEI number on the stickers all refer to older devices rather than new, unused devices. It is likely these stickers would be placed on packaging with devices inside to be sold on as new. (iii) in the present consignment, the importer has imposed counterfeit Apple products with the mala fide intention of selling the same as genuine in the open markets and thereby deceiving the general public at large. This has been affirmed vide Inspection Report dated 12.03.2021 as has been impressed upon by learned Departmental Representative. Accordingly, we hold that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the under valuatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2012 titled M/S. Ashiana Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (I&G), this Court discussed the proportionality of punishment imposed on Custom House Agents in an appeal where the CESTAT upheld the revocation of the license of the Appellant under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. While deciding the said appeal, the Court held as under: "8. The issue before the Court is the proportionality of the penalty awarded in this case. The CHA Regulations prescribe two penalties: suspension of the license for a particular period of time, and revocation of the license, such that it irretrievably loses its currency. Once the Commissioner reaches a decision, the CESTAT, and this Court, would not ordinarily interfere with the award of punishment, denuding the disciplinary power of the designated authority. That said, the course of action taken by the Commissioner of Customs must depend on the gravity and nature of the infraction by the CHA, and thus, the punishment must be proportional to the violation. Given the civil consequences of revocation for the CHA, read in the background of its freedom under Article 19(1)(g), this principle of law is undisputed. Casting s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner and the CESTAT that the appellant did not have knowledge that the illegal exports were effected using the G cards given to VK's employees. There was no active or passive facilitation by the appellant in that sense. Undoubtedly, the provision of the G cards to non-employees itself violated the CHA Regulations. This is an admitted fact, but it is not the Revenue's argument (nor is it the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner or the CESTAT) that this violation in itself is sufficiently grave so as to justify the extreme measure of revocation. Not any and every infraction of the CHA Regulations, either under Regulation 13 ("Obligations of CHA") or elsewhere, leads to the revocation of license; rather, in line with a proportionality analysis, only grave and serious violations justify revocation. In other cases, suspension for an adequate period of time (resulting in loss of business and income) suffices, both as a punishment for the infraction and as a deterrent to future violations. For the punishment to be proportional to the violation, revocation of the license under Rule 20(1) can only be justified in the presence of aggravating factors that allow the infraction to be ....