The Bombay High Court has upheld the revocation of the licence of M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Ltd., a courier agency found guilty of making false declarations in import documents. The Court observed that the agency had effectively stepped into the shoes of the importer and, therefore, was liable for violations committed during the import process.
Since the two consignments in the present case were found to be carrying smuggled gold of 4879.9 grams, indicating criminality, the Court observed that the Petitioner, if not directly, he vicariously becomes liable for the said act on account of his non-discharge of the obligations cast under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the failure of the petitioner to follow the mandate of the Customs Act, 1962, and omission to exercise due diligence in discharging its obligations under the 1998 Regulations, has led to massive misuse of the facility given in addition to loss of Revenue.
Accordingly, the breach of trust reposed by the Revenue Department in the petitioner’s courier agency justifies the revocation of its license, and hence will act as a deterrent to similar wrongdoings, added the Bench.
Essentially, the dispute that raised the attention of the department was the clear involvement of the petitioner in handling two consignments during November 2012, containing gold jewellery worth Rs. 1.21 crore, falsely declared as ‘die and hydraulic bottle jack’. Investigations revealed the petitioner had improperly cleared over 250 similar consignments for entities linked to one Mansukhlal Dhanak without proper authorisation. Consequently, their courier license was revoked, and a security deposit was forfeited.
The deregistration orders sought by the petitioner came to be refused, as the High Court noted that the courier had falsely declared obtaining of authorization in the Bill of Entry, whereas, in reality, the petitioner had no direct contact with the importer, and the work was subcontracted, violating Regulation 13(a) of the 1998 Regulations.
The Court also observed that strict compliance is essential in the courier business due to its sensitive nature, and any leniency would set a bad precedent and encourage misuse of the system. Since authorized couriers act in a fiduciary capacity for both clients and Customs, the Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to perform its duties under Regulation 13, leading to massive revenue loss and showing total disregard for the rules.
The Court therefore refused to interfere and concluded that the revocation imposed by the Customs Department is reasonable and based on ground realities.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Chirag Shetty
Respondent: Advocates Maya Majumdar and Abhishek R Mishra
