The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the order revoking the Authorised Courier License of the appellant and ordering for forfeiture of security deposit and imposing of penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the grounds of vague show cause notice.
The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that though the show cause notice runs into as many as 129 pages, but from page nos. 1 to 127 the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings relating to the Customs Act has been reproduced. Though the show cause notice calls upon the appellant to submit representation as to why the appellant has failed to comply with provisions under 2010 Regulations to act as an Authorised Courier, it does not mention why the appellant had contravened the aforesaid provisions of the 2010 Regulations.
The order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo General), New Delhi1 revoking the Authorised Courier License of the appellant and ordering for forfeiture of security deposit and imposing of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon the appellant under the provisions of the Courier Imports And Exports Regulations, 2010 has been assailed in the appeal.
A show cause notice runs into as many as 129 pages reveals that upto paragraph 24, which is at Page No. 128 of the show cause notice, only the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 has been reproduced.
In paragraph 25 of the show cause notice it is stated that “as per the foregoing”, it appears that the Authorised Courier, i.e. the appellant failed to comply with regulations 12(I)(i),(iii),(iv)(vii) and (x) of 2010 Regulations and, the appellant appears to have failed to comply with obligations under 2010 Regulations to act as an Authorised Courier.
The show cause notice further stated that an enquiry officer is being appointed before whom the appellant should submit his representation within 45 days.
Paragraph 26 of the show cause notice further mentions that the appellant should show cause to the Commissioner within 60 days of the receipt of the enquiry report as to why he should not be held responsible for contravention of provisions of Regulation 12 (1)(i), (iii), (iv),(v) (vii) and (x) of 2010 Regulations.
The assessee contended that the show cause notice is absolutely vague and, therefore, the order that has been passed should be set aside.
The tribunal held that the appellant should have gathered from the order passed under the Customs Act the facts which could have resulted in violation of the Regulations. The show cause notice should have been specific. It should have specifically stated facts relating to violation of the 2010 Regulations.
Case Details
Case Title: Transit Point Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 52066 of 2024
Date: 10.03.2025
Counsel For Appellant: T. Chakrapani
Counsel For Respondent: Shashikant Sharma
