[Order]. - Dispute relates to recovery of ‘red sander wood logs’ in courier package shipped by Frankie through the appellant M/s. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. The original authority imposed penalties of ` 50,000/- on the courier under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 of ` 25,000/- under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 and of ` 25,000/- under Section 158(2)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.
2. In appeal, the penalty under Section 158 was set aside. Aggrieved by the continuation of the other two penalties, the appellant is before the Tribunal.
3. In the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PAX-APP-535 & 536/15-16, dated 14th December, 2015, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, has noted that the goods were mis-declared as ‘door supporting wooden cut pieces for personal use’ and that the consignee was shown as ‘Frankie’ whereas it was one Syed Ismail who came forward to claim it. This was held to be establish slackness and confirm involvement of the courier in this illegal shipment.
4. Heard learned Counsel for appellant and learned Authorised Representative.
5. It is the contention of the appellant that the order was passed without hearing them and that the courier shipping bill had been filed on the basis of documents furnished by the booking courier, Atlantic International Courier and M/s. Fastway Worldwide Express, who had not been made noticees. It is also contended that the quashing of penalty under Section 158 should lead to quashing of other penalties as no rule or regulation had been contravened.
6. The appellant is a courier that accepts packages from other booking agencies. There is no requirement for the courier to examine cargo or items that are shipped through them. It is a normal practice for such entities to rely upon the documents furnished by those who actually do the booking at the customer’s end. No evidence has been cited and no allegation has been made other than failure on the part of the appellant as a licenced courier to ascertain and declare the goods correctly. The impugned order having set aside one of the penalties imposed on the courier in the proceedings and there being no evidence that the appellant was aware of the illegal nature of the shipment being effected or that the appellant was aware that the owner was the said Syed Ismail and not Frankie as mentioned in the documents, the ingredients for the imposition of penalty under Sections 114 and 14AA does not exist.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(Pronounced in Court)
Comments