TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 27.2.20215 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals - I), Chennai. 2. The appellants M/s. Total Courier & Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as 'Total Courier') and Shri V. Vijayakumar, Proprietor of M/s. Saranam Logistics have filed the present appeals. They have appealed against the imposition of penalty on them under sec. 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that they have aided and abetted in the attempted smuggling of 7325 grams of Pseudo Ephedrine Hydrochloride valued at Rs.7,32,500/- (Indian Value). The said goods were ingeniously concealed inside 2500 nos. of fancy Key chains valued at Rs.7,500/- being exported through the courier mode. The 7325 grams of Pseudo Ephedrine Hydrochloride a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant. The Appellant paid the amount and retained the registration. A Plain reading of Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 convey that the alleged omission on the part of the Appellant should have rendered the goods liable for confiscation. The omission alleged to have been committed by the Appellant relates to procedural lapse in KYC norms to be followed under the customs circular. KYC is a process or procedure of identifying or confirming the identity of the consignor and does not relate to rendering the concealed drugs liable for confiscation. Hence, no penalty can be imposed on the Appellant under the section 114(i) and 114AA for an offence the Appellant has not been accused of. He hence prayed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty under section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act can be imposed for breach of the statutory provisions and no mens rea was required to be established for imposition no penalty. He further stated that the additional evidence filed by the appellant Shree Vijay Kumar by way of a commendation letter was not an evidence and moreover it was not placed before the Original Authority. It was filed only to strengthen a weak case and hence should not be allowed. Further the question of double jeopardy did not arise as action under the Act and the Regulations were for different activities. He prayed that the appeals may be rejected. 4. Heard the parties to the appeal and have also gone through the appeal and connected records. 4.1 We find that Total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chennai, FINAL ORDER NO. 40631/2025, Dated: 20.06.2025]. 4.2 However, any person including a CHA may be involved in blame worthy acts with the intention of helping the importer/exporter evade payment of duty or importing/exporting prohibited gods etc., by entering into a conspiracy/collusion with an importer/exporter or aiding /abetting them to defraud the exchequer etc. In such cases the cause of action is different from the role of a courier company under the Regulations and penal action can be taken under the Customs Act 1962. Moreover, if violations of both the laws are evident then action taken under the Customs Act shall be without prejudice to the action taken under the Regulations and the proceedings can, if the situation warrants,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperly, etc. - Any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable,- (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty [not exceeding three times the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act] [ Substituted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 117, for " not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees" (w.e.f. 14.5.2003). Earlier, these words were substituted by Act 14 of 2001, Section 108 (w.e.f. 11.5.2001).], whichever is t....