The authorized courier must strictly adhere to regulatory obligations, including verifying client identity and maintaining proper records; violations result in penalties, including license revocation.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. This petition challenges an order passed by respondent no.2 dated 28 November 2013 and the order dated 20 February 2014 passed by respondent no.3 confirming the Order-in-Original (O-I-O) whereby the petitioner’s registration under the Courier Imports And Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (‘1998 Regulations’) was revoked and an order of forfeiture of Rs.10 lakhs, deposited by the petitioner as security at the time of registration, was passed.

Brief Facts:-

2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing courier services. The petitioner was granted registration under the 1998 Regulations for conducting its business of clearing express import/export cargo through the courier mode as an authorised courier at the Mumbai terminal.

3. In the first week of November 2012, intelligence was received that the two consignments imported from gulf country carried contraband gold jewellery. Based on this intelligence, two consignments covered by Airway Bills (‘AWB’) Nos.9717334743 and 9717334738 dated 8 November 2012 were detained. The clearance of the said two consignments were handled by the petitioner for which ‘Form IV’ Bill of Entry was filed by the petitioner. The goods were declared as ‘Die and Hydraulic bottle jack’ valued at Rs.8,728/- and the importers were entities controlled by one Shri Mansukhlal Dhanak. On an in-depth enquiry and examination of the said two consignments, gold jewellery weighing 4879.9 gms. was found concealed in the die and hydraulic bottle jack. The estimated value of the gold on the date of seizure was Rs . 1.21 crore.

4. On investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was handling courier parcels of ‘Balaji Engineering’, ‘Chamunda Enterprises’ and ‘Regent Engineering’, entities belonging to Shri Mansukhlal Dhanak, 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” from the period April 2012 to October 2012. These 250 consignments belong to the above referred entities of Shri Mansukhlal Dhanak.

5. The respondents recorded the statements of Shri Mansukhlal Dhanak, Shri Mohan Naik and the employees of the petitioner. In the investigation, it was revealed that Shri Mansuklal Dhanak, through Shri Mohan Naik, engaged the petitioner for the clearance of imports since Shri Mohan Naik acted as an intermediary and knew Shri Mansuklal Dhanak and the petitioner. In the statements recorded it is admitted that these consignments were cleared from April to October by the petitioner and Shri Dhanak has made payments through illegal channels. Therefore, although only two consignments are subject matter of this petition, we cannot lose sight of the fact of past clearance. In the statement recorded, it was noticed by the respondents that the petitioner has not complied with the obligations cast upon the petitioner under the 1998 Regulations. Therefore, a show cause notice came to be issued against the petitioner.

6. Based on above, the proceedings were initiated by the respondents against the petitioner under the 1998 Regulations.

7. On 28 November 2013, an O-I-O was passed after considering the reply of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner. The O-I-O holds 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 forfe