Custom
TRT-2025-
Cestat New Delhi
Date:-16-03-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 16 March 2023
Parties: M/s FedEx Express Transportation & Supply Chain Services India Private Ltd Vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi (Airport And General)
Facts –
- The Appellant, M/s FedEx Express Transportation & Supply Chain Services India Private Ltd, provides courier services. The Revenue was informed that there are delay in examination of the export consignments lying at FedEx Customs Terminal. On examination it was found that something stuffed inside the 3 consignments.
- It appeared that FedEx themselves had not made proper efforts to communicate with regard to the illegal booking of export consignments covered in the aforementioned CSB. It further appeared that Appellant have failed to abide by the provisions of Regulations 6, 12 (iv, v, vi & viii) of CIER, 2010.
- Show cause notice was issued forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs and imposing penalty.
Issue –
- Whether the appellant failed to abide by the provisions of Regulations 6, 12 (iv, v, vi & viii) of CIER, 2010?
Order –
- The Tribunal observed that there is no failure of Regulation 6 (4) of CIER, 2010, as there is no violation of any instructions or public notice issued by the customs. Further, there is no allegation that the export consignments in question were not presented properly to the proper officer or to the satisfaction of the proper officer. Accordingly, the allegation and finding under Regulation 6(4) are set aside.
- In the case of booking of consignment through Navya Creations for one Mr. Rakesh Jagid and Mr. Munshi Jogi, there is no violation of the provision of Regulation 12 (iv), as both Navya Creation and Rakesh Jagid have responded in the course of enquiry and cooperated in the matter and the Appellant had urged that as the consignment of Mr. Munshi Jogi was booked through their ASP, they had accepted the consignment relying on their ASP.
- So far, allegation under Regulation 12(v) is concerned, it was found that Appellant was in constant touch and had kept the customs informed. Accordingly, this ground is allowed and the findings of ld. Commissioner is set aside. There is no specific allegation as to any failure on the part of the Appellant to keep the customs department informed of any developments in the matter. Accordingly, it was held that there is no violation of Regulation 12(vi) & (vii) of CIER, 2010.
- It was found that there is lack of control and proper administration on their ASP and also find that the illegal activity was found by customs, there being no complicity of the appellant. Hence the appeal is allowed partly by set aside the order of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and reduced the penalty imposed.
Download Case Law
