Bombay High Court Upholds Deregistration Under Courier Imports & Exports (Clearance) Regulations
The Bombay Excessive Court docket has upheld an order whereby the license of a courier company was deregistered beneath Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Laws, 1998, in a case involving the alleged smuggling of gold by way of completely different consignments. The Excessive Court docket additionally famous that the approved courier acts in a fiduciary capability on behalf of their shopper and the customs authorities.
The Petition earlier than the Excessive Court docket challenged the orders whereby the petitioner’s registration beneath the Courier Imports And Exports (Clearance) Laws, 1998 (1998 Laws) was revoked and an order of forfeiture of Rs 10 lakh, deposited by the petitioner as safety at the time of registration, was handed.
The Division Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice M.S. Sonak stated, “On a studying of assorted obligations solid on authorised couriers beneath Clauses (a) to (j) of Regulation 13, in our view, an authorised courier acts in a fiduciary capability on behalf of their shopper and the customs authorities. He’s a bridge on which the customs authorities rely closely in making certain that clearance of imports and exports of products affecting the economic system is authorized.”
“Holding Regulation 13 analysed and cited above would definitely present that by a authorized fiction the Petitioner steps into the sneakers of the importer and has a obligation which crystallises into authorized legal responsibility to reply any contravention or fraud or for that matter any criminality in conduct.”
Advocate Chirag Shetty represented the Petitioner whereas Advocate Maya Majumdar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The petitioner, engaged within the enterprise of offering courier providers, was granted registration beneath the 1998 Laws for conducting its enterprise of clearing categorical import/export cargo by means of the courier mode as a certified courier on the Mumbai terminal. Within the first week of November 2012, intelligence was acquired that the 2 consignments imported from the Gulf nation carried contraband gold jewelry. Based mostly on this intelligence, two consignments have been detained.
On an in-depth enquiry and examination of the stated two consignments, gold jewelry weighing 4879.9 g was discovered hid within the die and hydraulic bottle jack. The estimated worth of the gold on the date of seizure was Rs 1.21 crore. On investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was dealing with courier parcels belonging to 1 Mansukhlal Dhanak, with out acquiring correct authorization from the consignee. It was additionally revealed that the petitioner had cleared greater than 250 consignments. Proceedings have been initiated by the respondents towards the petitioner, and the courier license issued was deregistered beneath Regulation 14 together with forfeiture of the safety deposit.
Reasoning
The Bench famous that greater than 250 consignments have been cleared by the petitioner on behalf of the entities, which weren’t real. It was solely after six months and on receipt of intelligence that the two consignments into consideration have been detained and from which roughly 4879 gms. of gold was seized. The stated gold was smuggled into the nation in violation of the legislation.
“Had the petitioner discharged its obligation beneath Regulation 13, the illegality dedicated by the bogus entities of Shri Mansukhlal Dhanak may have been prevented no less than from being carried out by means of the petitioner. Shri Dhanak has admitted in his assertion that funds for all these consignments have been despatched to the Gulf by unlawful channels. This exhibits that earlier consignments cleared by the petitioner amounted to smuggling, resulting in an enormous loss to the State”, the Bench stated.
“Contemplating the character of the enterprise through which the petitioner is engaged and for which he was authorised beneath the 1998 Laws, non-compliance with the Laws should be handled strictly. If any lenient view is taken, notably in mild of the current case, it would ship a incorrect sign, and this Court docket, beneath Article 226 of the Structure of India, can not condone such leniency. Any such train of discretion of leniency will solely encourage individuals to commit the offence by taking recourse to the providers of the courier businesses”, it additional added.
The Bench additionally defined that Regulation 13(b) requires the approved courier to advise their shoppers to adjust to the Customs Act, Guidelines and Laws. Regulation 13(c) requires the train of due diligence to determine the correctness of assorted info submitted to the authorities. He’s obliged to not withhold info from the assessing officer of the Customs beneath Regulation 11, and the approved courier is liable to pay obligation and curiosity additionally.
Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Court docket additional acknowledged, “In brief, the Petitioner courier company has breached the belief reposed on it by the Income. Subsequently, the revocation of license is justified and any leniency proven within the misconduct of this nature would ship incorrect indicators. Punishment of revocation of licence would definitely go a protracted technique to act as a deterrent.”
Trigger Title: M/s. Skypak Companies Specialists Restricted v. . Union of India (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-OS:9660-DB)
Look
Petitioner: Advocate Chirag Shetty
Respondent: Advocates Maya Majumdar, Abhishek R. Mishra
