JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioner impugns the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (I & G), New Delhi and an order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs. The said orders are hereinafter referred to as the `impugned orders'. By the impugned order dated 21.02.2014, the registration granted to the petitioner as an authorised courier by the custom authorities was revoked and a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 21.02.2014 was dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.06.2014.

2. Essentially, the petitioner has challenged the revocation of its licence as authorised courier on the ground that the said punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the allegations and that the impugned order dated 21.02.2014 was beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts for considering the controversy in the present petition are as under:

3.1. The petitioner is one of the authorised couriers operating at the New Courier Terminal (NCT). The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner not be held responsible for contravention of Regulation 13(a), 13(g) & 13(j) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearances) Regulations, 1998 (hereafter `1998 Regulations') and why the petitioner's registration under the 1998 Regulations be not revoked. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were that the petitioner had not been submitting the authorisations for delivery of the consignments to the consignees and further, the signatures appearing on several authorisations appeared to be similar, which indicated that the signatures on the authorisations were forged/fabricated. In addition, it was alleged that petitioner had availed of the services of another courier without any prior permission of the Commissioner of Customs as required by virtue of Regulation 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations.

3.2. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice and contended that the authorisations and the delivery receipts were available with the petitioner and if given an opportunity, the petitioner would be able to furnish the said documents. It was further submitted that it was a common practice that every courier agency availed the services of other agencies in order to perform their work. Although the petitioner admitted that prior permission to use another courier agency, namely DTDC, had not been taken, nonetheless, the petitioner contended that DTDC was a responsible and an authorised courier and, therefore, the lapse in obtaining prior permissions be condoned. The petitioner further asserted that it had not knowingly or deliberately done any act which was illegal or in violation of the customs rules and regulations.

3.3. The Commissioner of Customs (I & G), respondent no.2, found that the petitioner had not maintained proper records as it has failed to submit the authorisations to the customs department in spite of repeated requests. The Commissioner of Customs (I & G) further found that although the petitioner had submitted delivery certificates pursuant to the letters issued to the petitioner, the signatures thereon appeared to be forged/fabricated and, apparently, recorded by a common single individual against different consignees. Further, the authorisations by the consignees authorizing the courier to act as their authorised representative for clearance of the import consignments had not been submitted. The Commissioner of Customs (I & G), thus, held that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Regulation 13(a) and 13(g) of the 1998 Regulations.

3.4. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Commissioner of Customs (I & G) forfeited the security amount of Rs.2,00,000/-and also ordered revocation of the registration of the petitioner as an authorised courier agency.

3.5. The petition