No Leniency In Import/Export Lapses; Bombay High Court Upholds Licence Cancellation Of Courier Agency For Clearing Imports Without Authorisation

The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier since the petitioner was engaged in the business of clearance of imports and exports. There is a high degree of responsibility cast upon the petitioner in the discharge of its functions because the repercussions of illegal imports and exports are economically and otherwise also far reaching.” On 9 November 1998, the Central Board of Excise and Customs through a notification notified the Regulations for regulating the business of courier at the Airport for the purposes of import and export. These regulations are called “the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998”. These 1998 Regulations apply for assessment and clearance of goods carried by the authorised couriers on incoming or outgoing flights or by any other mode of transport on behalf of a consignee or consignor for a commercial consideration. In this case, the petitioner is engaged in the business of providing courier services. The petitioner was granted registration under the 1998 Regulations (the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998) for conducting its business of clearing express import/export cargo through the courier mode as an authorised courier at the Mumbai terminal. On investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was handling courier parcels without obtaining proper authorisation from the consignee. It was also revealed during the investigation that the petitioner had cleared more than 250 consignments described as “hydraulic jacks, dies and bladeless fans”. Based on above, the proceedings were initiated by the department against the petitioner under the 1998 Regulations. An order was passed where it was held that the petitioner has not carried out its obligation under Regulation 13(a), 13(c), 13(g), 13(i) and 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations and, therefore, the courier license issued was deregistered under Regulation 14 along with forfeiture of the security deposit. The petitioner has challenged the order Commissioner of Customs/respondent no.2 whereby the petitioner's registration under the Courier Imports And Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 was revoked and an order of forfeiture of Rs.10 lakhs, deposited by the petitioner as security at the time of registration, was passed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner in non-compliance with the regulation and relying upon the following three decisions, 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 agency to adhere to the Regulations in order to safeguard the interest of Revenue and the trust placed on them. The petitioner was mandated to work within the legal framework of the Customs Act, 1962, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The petitioner failed to do so. “The petitioner did not exercise due diligence in discharging its obligations under the Regulations. By violating the Regulations, it had given scope for massive misuse of the facility given in addition to loss of Revenue. In short, the petitioner courier agency has breached the trust reposed on it by the Revenue. Therefore, the revocation of license is justified and any leniency shown in the misconduct of this nature would send wrong signals. Punishment of revocation of licence would certainly go a long way to act as a deterrent”, added the bench. The bench concluded that the petitioner was negligent in discharging its obligation under the Regulations. In view of the above, the bench dismissed the petition. Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited v. Union of India Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2014 Counsel for Petitioner/ Petitioner: Chirag Shetty Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Maya Majumdar Click Here To Read/Download The Order

No Leniency In Import/Export Lapses; Bombay High Court Upholds Licence Cancellation Of Courier Agency For Clearing Imports Without Authorisation

Mehak Dhiman

Tags