No Leniency In Import/Export Lapses; Bombay High Court Upholds Licence Cancellation Of Courier Agency For Clearing Imports Without Authorisation
The Bombay Excessive Court docket has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier company for clearing imports with out authorisation by stating that any such train of discretion of leniency will solely encourage individuals to commit the offence by taking recourse to the providers of the courier companies.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain acknowledged that “the petitioner has been negligent in finishing up its obligation underneath the 1998 Rules. These obligations are forged on the Authorised Courier for the reason that petitioner was engaged within the enterprise of clearance of imports and exports. There’s a excessive diploma of duty forged upon the petitioner within the discharge of its features as a result of the repercussions of unlawful imports and exports are economically and in any other case additionally far reaching.”
On 9 November 1998, the Central Board of Excise and Customs by a notification notified the Rules for regulating the enterprise of courier on the Airport for the needs of import and export. These rules are known as “the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Rules, 1998”.
These 1998 Rules apply for evaluation and clearance of products carried by the authorised couriers on incoming or outgoing flights or by some other mode of transport on behalf of a consignee or consignor for a industrial consideration.
In this case, the petitioner is engaged within the enterprise of offering courier providers. The petitioner was granted registration underneath the 1998 Rules (the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Rules, 1998) for conducting its enterprise of clearing specific import/export cargo by the courier mode as an authorised courier on the Mumbai terminal.
On investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was dealing with courier parcels with out acquiring correct authorisation from the consignee. It was additionally revealed through the investigation that the petitioner had cleared greater than 250 consignments described as “hydraulic jacks, dies and bladeless followers”.
Primarily based on above, the proceedings have been initiated by the division towards the petitioner underneath the 1998 Rules.
An order was handed the place it was held that the petitioner has not carried out its obligation underneath Regulation 13(a), 13(c), 13(g), 13(i) and 13(j) of the 1998 Rules and, subsequently, the courier license issued was deregistered underneath Regulation 14 together with forfeiture of the safety deposit.
The petitioner has challenged the order Commissioner of Customs/respondent no.2 whereby the petitioner’s registration underneath the Courier Imports And Exports (Clearance) Rules, 1998 was revoked and an order of forfeiture of Rs.10 lakhs, deposited by the petitioner as safety on the time of registration, was handed.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there isn’t any mens rea on the a part of the petitioner in non-compliance with the regulation and relying upon the next three choices, submitted that the revocation of the licence in the absence of mens rea was unjustified.
The bench opined that it was incumbent upon the petitioner courier company to stick to the Rules so as to safeguard the curiosity of Income and the belief positioned on them. The petitioner was mandated to work inside the authorized framework of the Customs Act, 1962, Guidelines and Rules made thereunder. The petitioner failed to take action.
“The petitioner didn’t train due diligence in discharging its obligations underneath the Rules. By violating the Rules, it had given scope for large misuse of the power given along with lack of Income. Briefly, the petitioner courier company has breached the belief reposed on it by the Income. Due to this fact, the revocation of license is justified and any leniency proven within the misconduct of this nature would ship fallacious indicators. Punishment of revocation of licence would actually go a protracted approach to act as a deterrent”, added the bench.
The bench concluded that the petitioner was negligent in discharging its obligation underneath the Rules.
In view of the above, the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: M/s. Skypak Providers Specialists Restricted v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2014
Counsel for Petitioner/ Petitioner: Chirag Shetty
Counsel for Respondent/ Division: Maya Majumdar