Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan logo
b

Courier agent – No contravention of Courier Imports and Exports Regulations for non-collection of second identity document and outsourcing of physical pick-up

28 Sept 20261 min read

The CESTAT Chennai has set aside the findings of contravention under Regulations 13(i) and 13(j) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 [similar to Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010], based respectively on non-collection of a second identity document and outsourcing of physical pick-up. The Tribunal in Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner  noted the following:

  • Regulation 13(i) did not mandate two identity documents which arose only from CBIC Circular No. 33/2010.

  • Circular No. 7/2015 subsequently relaxed the requirement of two documents.

  • Non-production of a second document may be a procedural lapse, but, absent evidence that the consignor’s identity or address could not be verified from the undisputedly genuine driving licence, it does not establish breach.

  • Regulation 13(j) prohibits outsourcing, without the Commissioner’s written permission, of only functions required or permitted under the Regulation and does not prohibit all commercial outsourcing.

  • Outsourced activity was only collection or pick-up of the export consignment.

  • Circular No. 59/2016-Cus., though prospective, recognises pick-up as a non-core activity.

Further, the Tribunal also held that mere filing of the courier declaration on the consignor's information, followed by discovery of prohibited goods, does not establish a knowing false declaration for imposition of penalty under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. It noted that there was no evidence in the impugned order that the courier knew of, participated in, or facilitated the misdeclaration or the ingenious concealment of the export-prohibited goods in pouches embedded within the embroidery. 

The assessee was represented by Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys here.

Related Articles

Was this useful?

Discuss this topic with our Customs team

Contact Us
CallEmail