InCustoms Appeal No. 40271 of 2016 -CESTAT- CESTAT (Chennai) sets aside order revoking UPS Jet Air Express's registration as authorized courier,reduces penalty to Rs. 5 lakh
Members Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) & Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) [21-08-2023]

Read Order: UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd v. The Chief Commissioner of Customs

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 8, 2023: In a relief to UPS Jet Air Express Pvt. Ltd. (appellant), the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunalhas set aside the order revoking the appellant's registration as an authorized courier. The Tribunal ruled that the order could not be upheld as there was a lack of evidence demonstrating the company's involvement in the smuggling of gold jewellery and other commercial goods.

In the present case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in Chennai had received specific intelligence indicating that gold jewellery and other commercial goods were being smuggled into India from Singapore through courier parcels booked via he appellant. To investigate further, surveillance was conducted on the clearance of these courier parcels. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the parcels contained Sony High-Definition Digital Video Cameras, ‘Titan’ branded watches of various models, and concealed 10.475 kilograms of 22-carat gold jewellery. Given that these goods appeared to have been smuggled into India without proper declaration or duty payment, the officers seized them. Subsequently, the original authority decided to revoke the appellant's registration as an authorized courier and ordered the forfeiture of their Rs. 10 lakhs security deposit. The appellant then filed a representation before the Chief Commissioner, who upheld the original authority's decision.

The coram of SulekhaBeevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) noted that the allegation against the appellant was that they failed to obtain authorization from the consignee for the import of the consignment. However, the facts revealed that one Mr. Naveen Kumar, a former employee of the appellant, explicitly admitted to being solely responsible for the manipulation that took place and that neither anyone in the appellant's office nor the appellant themselves were involved in the offense.

The bench further noted that besides the allegation that the appellant failed to obtain authorization, there was no clear evidence of the appellant's direct involvement in the incident. Records also indicated that Mr. Naveen Kumar had been terminated from his services. Also, the appellant had actively cooperated with the investigation to uncover the truth. After a thorough assessment of the evidence, the bench did not find sufficient grounds to hold the appellant responsible for playing any role in the incident.

Given the circumstances, the bench determined that the order of revocation of the license could not be upheld and needed to be set aside. However, considering that the appellant did not obtain authorization from the importer, the bench decided that the forfeiture of the security deposit would suffice as a penalty. The initial forfeiture of Rs. 10 lakhs was deemed excessive, and the bench concluded that forfeiture of Rs. 5 lakhs would be an adequate penalty.