TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal could interfere and set aside a validity executed contract like Bank Guarantee which are guided by the provisions of the Indian Contract Act being an independent contract executed by a Financial Institution which stipulates that payment has to be made without any demur? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal could exercise discretion on the ground of equity and reduce the penalty which is not provided in law?" 4. Facts in Brief: The respondent-assessee was granted permission to operate as an Authorized Courier at the International Courier Terminal of the Airport and Cargo Commissionerate, Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Such permission is governed by the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter '1998 Regulations') and the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter '2010 Regulations'). The respondent engages in the clearance of goods imported from overseas through its courier service on behalf of Indian importers/customers. The appellant conducted an investigation through its Intelligence Unit. Based on intelligence received, it was confirmed that M/s. K. T. Technologies had violat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., set aside the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also set aside the order of revocation of the authorized courier license and enforcement of the Bond and Bank Guarantees. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. Submissions: 5. Sri Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that the respondent has admitted to violations of the 2010 Regulations and the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer, though initially contended that the imports were without her knowledge, she subsequently claimed ownership of the consignments and paid the duty and penalty. It is submitted that the CESTAT recorded the involvement of the respondent in the alleged illegal imports and violations of Regulation 12 of the 2010 Regulations. Learned counsel contends that the CESTAT, having recorded such findings, misdirected itself in holding that there was no mens rea on the part of the respondent to violate the 2010 Regulations. It is submitted that the penalty cannot be avoided merely on the ground that the illegality was committed by the staff of the licensee, and that once the illegality is established, the conse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel further submits that the revocation of the authorized courier license is disproportionate to the alleged violation. 6.1 Learned counsel further submits that a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be levied only when no penalty is provided under any other Act or Regulations. Since Regulation 14 specifically provides for the levy of penalty, the imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act would amount to a double levy for the same violation, which is impermissible. Learned counsel further submits that the CESTAT has recorded findings of fact based on the material evidence on record, and, therefore, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Court. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the appeal papers. 8. At the outset, we are not in agreement with the finding of the CESTAT that the presence of mens rea is a prerequisite for imposing penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. A plain reading of Section 117 of the Act makes it clear that whenever any person contravenes any provision of the Act or fails to comply therewith, a penalty is attracted. Reading a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Sri M. Elias was acting as Executive Clearance for the purpose of reviving the business. Any violation of the Regulations or licence conditions, it was contended, was not within the knowledge of the respondent. 11. Meanwhile, Ms. Kajal Thakur claimed ownership of the goods. Duty and penalty were determined, paid, and the seized goods were released in her favour. However, proceedings continued against the respondent for non-verification of the imports and various other violations. It is concluded that Sri M. Elias, working for the authorised courier, created a GSTIN in the name of Ms. Kajal Thakur, and bills of entry were filed in the name of M/s K. T. Technologies. Consequently, it is held that the imports in the name of M/s K. T. Technologies were mis-declared and undervalued, thereby violating Regulation 12 imposing conditions. It is further held that the respondent failed to properly advise the consignee, M/s K. T. Technologies, to comply with the provisions of the Act, Rules, and Regulations. 12. In the light of the foregoing sequential facts, the proceedings against the respondent were initiated on the ground of creating a GSTIN and submitting courier bills of entry i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposition of penalty under Regulation 14, we are of the view that revocation of the authorised courier licence would be harsh and disproportionate to the contravention alleged. The CESTAT, having duly appreciated the factual matrix, was justified in setting aside the order of revocation. 15. The CESTAT reduced the penalty imposed from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- under Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations. While the CESTAT recorded a finding that the respondent had violated Regulation 12, it committed an error in reducing the penalty prescribed under the Regulations. For this reason, and in view of the fact that the CESTAT, having set aside the revocation of the authorised courier licence, ought to have maintained the penalty, we set aside the order of the CESTAT insofar as it relates to the penalty under Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations and restore the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- as originally imposed by the appellant. 16. The appellant had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The CESTAT set aside the same, holding that Section 117 is applicable only when no express penalty is provided elsewhere for the contravention. It is accord....