TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itched/embroidered portions of the garments. While the initial test indicated Methaqualone (16,500 grams), the Central Revenue Laboratory, Chennai subsequently identified the substance as pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, export of which required a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the Central Bureau of Narcotics. In its absence of the NOC, it appeared that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 113(e), (d) and (h)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Investigation further alleged that the consignment had not been directly booked with TNT. It was booked with M/s. Universal Worldwide Express Courier & Cargo, Egmore, and routed through M/s. Worldwide Express, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, which had an account and business arrangement with TNT. The Appellant had not obtained any permission from the Commissioner of Customs for sub-contracting/outsourcing the services to M/s. Worldwide Express and M/s. Universal Worldwide Express. The consignor's address was also found to be false. Searches of the premises of the courier intermediaries did not yield any contraband or incriminating documents. The SCN alleged that TNT had accepted the parcels from Worldwide Express on the basis of only one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ource functions permitted or required to be carried out by him in terms of these regulations to any other person, without the written permission of the Commissioner of Customs." 5.1 Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, also provides for the obligations of Authorized Courier in more or less similar terms as Regulation 13 of the 1998 Regulations. "12. Obligations of Authorised Courier. (1) An Authorised Courier shall - (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; 5.2 Provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (A) 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he consignment or aided and abetted the attempted smuggling of narcotics. These findings are beyond the SCN and are unsustainable, as an adjudication order cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. Reliance is placed on Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III [2003-160-E.L.T. 273-Tri-Bang.]; Saci Allied Products Limited Vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Meerut [2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC)] and Vikram Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs [2006-205-ELT-735-Tri-Bang]. 6.1 The principal contention of the Appellant is that the adjudicating authority travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice in his OIO, by resting its findings on grounds and material which were never put to the Appellant. The question that therefore arises is whether the findings in the impugned order are merely particulars, inferences or evidentiary material flowing from the case set out in the Show Cause Notice, or whether the OIO introduces for the first time new material facts which constitute a different foundation for the proposed liability. The principle involved has been stated by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in M/s. ABK-AOTS-DOSOKAI Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, [2026 (8) TMI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y piece of evidence or every particular ultimately relied upon was expressly set out in the Notice, but whether the Notice disclosed the essential factual and legal foundation of the charge-the taxable activity, the basis on which it was alleged to be taxable and the material facts necessary to enable the assessee to meet that charge. While particulars and supporting evidence may, in an appropriate case, be developed during adjudication, a material fact which constitutes the very foundation of the proposed liability cannot be introduced for the first time in the adjudication order. Relief cannot be founded upon, nor a demand confirmed on, a case which the assessee was never called upon to answer. The core test, therefore, is: Was the assessee put on notice of the essential factual foundation and legal basis of the particular demand, such that it could reasonably defend itself? If not, the adjudicating authority cannot cure that defect by supplying the missing material facts in the Order-in-Original." (emphasis as in original) 6.2 In the present case, the SCN proceeded against the Appellant as an Authorised Courier. The allegations were confined to alleged unauthorised outsour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., on the basis of only one identity document. The parcels had, in turn, been received by Worldwide Express from M/s Universal Worldwide Express Courier & Cargo (UniEx Worldwide Express Courier & Cargo). No permission of the Commissioner of Customs had been obtained for such sub-contracting or outsourcing. Accordingly, she submitted that TNT had violated Regulations 13(i) and 13(j) of the CIER. 7.1 The Appellant submits that there was no contravention of Regulations 13(i) and 13(j) of the CIER. As regards Regulation 13(i), it is contended that the Appellant had verified the consignor's identity and antecedents on the basis of his driving licence, which appeared genuine and contained both proof of identity and address. The requirement of obtaining two identity documents was not prescribed by Regulation 13(i) itself but only by Circular No. 33/2010, and was subsequently relaxed by Circular No. 7/2015-Cus., which accepted one document if it contained both identity and address particulars. The Appellant submits that the aforesaid condition imposed vide the Circular is not binding on it, as it is only a clarification issued by the Board. Therefore, obtaining only one ID proof instead ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bit all commercial outsourcing. The Department therefore had to establish that the Appellant without permission, entrusted such a regulatory function, which it was obliged to do, to M/s. Worldwide Express or M/s. Universal Worldwide Express. 7.5 The outsourced activity was only collection or pick-up of the export consignment, which the CIER does not treat as an assessment or clearance function of an authorised courier. As held in Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, Mumbai [2016 (11) TMI 903 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, activities outside those functions do not attract Regulation 13(j). Circular No. 59/2016Cus., though prospective, likewise recognises pick-up as a non-core activity not requiring prior permission, subject to intimation and due diligence. 7.6 Installation of the Appellant's software at the agent's premises may show knowledge of the arrangement but does not prove that a regulatory function was outsourced. Mere outsourcing of physical pickup therefore does not violate Regulation 13(j). 7.7 Accordingly, the findings of contravention under Regulations 13(i) and 13(j), based respectively on non-collection of a second identity docume....