Cus - Merely because a representation or a remedy of making a representation is provided by Regulations, that does not displace appellate authority of tribunal - Revenue appeal dismissed: HC
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, MAR 06, 2018: THIS is a Revenue appeal.
The CESTAT - 2016-TIOL-3375-CESTAT-MUM while allowing the appeal of the respondent had held thus –
Cus - Commissioner revoking registration as Authorized courier and also directing forfeiture of Rs. 10 lakhs submitted by the Appellants as security at the time of registration of the Courier License - appeal to CESTAT. Held: Appeal maintainable - Once the goods were already assessed and cleared from Customs, any arrangement by the Appellant, which is post clearance from Customs for effecting domestic delivery to the door of the Consignee mentioned in the Courier Parcel, did not require any permission under the said Regulations - Courier License was revoked at a stage, even before issuance of any Show Cause Notice to any importer under section 28 and 124 of Customs Act, 1962, much less after adjudication thereof - Impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 6, 11, 17, 18]
M/s. Smashing Traders Private Limited had imported certain consignments. Those were detained on 13th September, 2014 for misdeclaration and undervaluation. The goods were handed over to Air Intelligence Unit for further investigation. The bills of entry were filed by the first respondent herein. During the search of the office premises of the first respondent, certain incriminating documents were recovered under a panchanama. The import was admitted by Mr. Kuo Leong (Proprietor of M/s Smashing Traders) to be in the sum of Indian Rupees 70 lakhs, whereas, the declared value was Indian Rupees 22.53 lakhs. One Shyam Kishore Mishra was found to be the holder of the import export code, which was obtained by him on behalf of M/s. Smashing Traders. His address was found to be bogus and there was no such office functioning in the name of M/s. Smashing Traders at the said address. On these materials, eventually, a suspension order was passed on 25th September, 2014 suspending the registration of the licence granted to the first respondent under Regulation 10 of the Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 as amended.
Thereafter, the inquiry was concluded, the inquiry report was forwarded and based on the findings therein, a further show cause notice was issued. On 12 th December, 2014 , an order was passed revoking the registration of the first respondent to operate as an authorised courier.
An appeal/representation against this order was preferred before the Chief Commissioner but the same came to be rejected on 21.01.2016 .
Against the order dated 12/12/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT and against the order of the Tribunal - 2016-TIOL-3375-CESTAT-MUM, the present appeal has been filed by Revenue.
After considering the submissions made, the High Court inter alia observed -
+ We have found from a reading of the regulations that they are traceable to the power conferred in the authorities vide the Customs Act, 1962 and several notifications issued thereunder.
+ Eventually, everything is traceable to the Customs Act, 1962 and once the said Act provides for an appeal and that appeal would lie to this tribunal against the order-in-original, then, merely because a representation or a remedy of making a representation is provided by the Regulations, that does not displace the appellate authority of the tribunal.
+ We do not think that the tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has acted perversely in entertaining the appeal.
+ Therefore, one opportunity being provided in the scheme of the law to the aggrieved courier does not cause serious prejudice to the Revenue. More so, when it can always approach this court against the orders of the tribunal.
+ Apart therefrom, the tribunal found that in the backdrop of the regulations stated to have been violated or breached, the goods were already assessed and cleared from Customs and any arrangement by the first respondent post clearance from Customs for effecting domestic delivery to the door of the consignee mentioned in the courier parcel does not require any permission under the said regulations.
+ The case of the Revenue is not that the courier agent sub-contracted to sublet/outsource any of the activity/function for the purpose of assessment and clearance of courier parcels.
+ The tribunal's findings and particularly from paras 12 to 15 are based on a re-appreciation and reappraisal of the factual materials. Once the matter is approached and looked at from this angle, we do not think that when such an exercise is undertaken by the tribunal, then, we should interfere in our appellate jurisdiction.
The Revenue appeal was dismissed.
(See 2018-TIOL-375-HC-MUM-CUS)
