TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 50,000/- has been imposed under the provisions of regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 [the 2010 Courier Regulations]. The order, however, refrains from revoking the authorized courier license of the appellant and also refrains from forfeiting security deposit furnished by the appellant. 2. It transpires that the Superintendent, Customs, sent a letter to the Commissioner making reference to an order dated 19.10.2022 that was passed against M/s Ridhi Enterprises and the appellant for further necessary action. 3. A show cause notice dated 30.12.2012 was then issued to the appellant by the Commissioner and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The show cause notice called....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Inquiry Officer regarding non-violation of regulation 12(1)(vii) and 12(1)(x) of the 2010 Courier Regulations. 6. Ultimately, the Commissioner observed as follows: "20. It is a fact that classification is one of the toughest areas of the Customs work. Though an Authorised Courier is expected to have a fairly good working knowledge of the classification issues, but to presume that they are infallible would be erroneous. In this case the importer has till the very end contended that the imported items were not printers even while agreeing to pay the differential duty. While there is not anything to suggest that the classification change was done with a malafide intention, however, as already held by me, I feel that the Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of regulation 12(1) (v) of the 2010 Courier Regulations, it was necessary for the Commissioner to have informed the appellant of the reasons why he disagreed with the findings and should have asked the appellant to submit an explanation, but that was not done. On the other hand, the Commissioner proceeded to examine the violation of the said regulation and observed that the appellant fell short of the adequate compliance. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner in respect of violation of regulation 12(1) (v) run contrary to the findings recorded by the Commissioner in respect of regulation 12(1) (vii) and 12 (1)(x) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that the appellant fell short of adequate compliance for the said regulation. In such a situation, it was imperative for the Commissioner to have apprised the appellant of the fact that he was not inclined to accept the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the regulation 12(1)(v) and should have also informed him the reasons for not agreeing. This was necessary for ensuring compliance of the principles of natural justice. This would have enabled the appellant to submit a reply for consideration of the Commissioner. The 2011 Courier Regulations do not provide for such a course to be adopted because they also do not deal with a situation where the Commissioner may not agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the instant case, the goods declared as 'mini machines' by the importer were found as 'mini printers' on examination. As discussed above, I am of the view that in no way, the authorized courier would have known about the mis-declaration in terms of description in respect of the said imported goods unless informed about the same by the importer and I do not find any such instance in the aforementioned Offence Report regarding Authorised Courier having prior knowledge about the exact description of goods. I find that upon mis-classification of goods found during the examination, it also appeared that the said goods found during the examination would require BIS certification. In this regard, I observe from the Email dated 07.....