The Bombay High Court has upheld the cancellation of registration and forfeiture of security deposit against a courier company involved in the clearance of two smuggled gold consignments from a Gulf country. The consignment was fraudulently declared as mechanical goods but was later found to conceal gold worth ₹1.21 crore.
The Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by the courier company challenging two orders passed in 2013 and 2014 by the Commissioner and Chief Commissioner of Customs at Mumbai airport. The authorities had revoked the courier’s registration under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, and forfeited a Rs. 10 lakh security deposit after investigations linked the courier to 250 suspicious consignments over a six-month period.
The case stemmed from intelligence alerts received in November 2012 regarding contraband gold jewellery being smuggled through courier parcels. Two consignments, declared as “Die and Hydraulic bottle jack” and filed under Form IV Bills of Entry, were found to contain 4,879.9 grams of concealed gold. These shipments were allegedly controlled by one Mansukhlal Dhanak, using entities such as Balaji Engineering, Chamunda Enterprises, and Regent Engineering.
The investigation revealed that the courier handled multiple consignments for these entities without proper authorisation and failed to verify Importer Exporter Codes (IECs), business authenticity, and addresses as mandated under the 1998 Regulations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the courier failed to maintain records or conduct due diligence, and instead cleared goods on instructions from an intermediary, Mohan Naik, without any direct relationship with the importers.
Rejecting the courier company’s arguments of disproportionate punishment, the Court held that the petitioner had displayed “utter disregard” for statutory obligations and facilitated a major economic offence. It ruled that the revocation of registration and forfeiture of the deposit were not only proportionate but essential to deter similar violations by others in the logistics and courier trade.
The court emphasized the fiduciary role of authorised couriers in safeguarding customs revenue and ensuring legal compliance in cross-border shipments. “Beneath every obligation lies deep responsibility,” the Court noted, stating that the courier acted negligently despite handling over 250 consignments on behalf of unverified, bogus entities.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited Versus Union of India
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1326 Of 2014
Date: 30 June 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Chirag Shetty i/by Economic Law Practice
Counsel For Respondent: Maya Majumdar a/w Mr. Abhishek R. Mishra
- MBA Finance vs CA: Career Roles, Skills, Salary Comparison - July 26, 2025
- New Recruitment Rules for Junior Accounts Officer in MSME Dept. - July 26, 2025
- 250% Return From SGB 2017-18 Series II - July 26, 2025
