Delhi High Court
M/S Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th September, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 7116/2019
M/S DART AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra & Mr. Nalin
Hingorani, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT AND
GENERAL) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, SSC with Mr.
Kuldeep Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by M/s Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd.
challenging the order dated 29th August, 2019 arising from proceedings under
the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing)
Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter, 'the Regulations, 2010'). The petition
challenges the disagreement note dated 31st May, 2019 (hereinafter, 'the
disagreement note'), issued by the office of the Commissioner of Customs
(Airport & General), New Custom House, New Delhi.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that it is in the business of providing courier
services and is a registered company under the said Regulations, 2010. On 28th
December, 2018, an incident was reported for the purpose of verification in
respect of certain courier parcels through the Petitioner which is an authorized
courier, where the consignee was one Smt. Sayra Ansari.
4. The Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch (hereinafter, 'SIIB')
sent a letter dated 22nd February, 2019 to the Respondent, wherein the
suspension of the Registration of the Petitioner was requested.
5. The said incident report dated 28th December, 2018 pertained to the
consignee, Smt. Sayra Ansarishe, wife of Mr. Munna @ Abdul Munna Ansari,
who had a London address in Broadway, South UK. The allegations raised are
that the husband of the consignee used to send parcels from London, containing
cut cloth pieces along with measurements/designs for stitching, and these cut
pieces of clothes were stitched at the residence of the consignee in India, where
stitching machines were installed. The stitched items were then being sent back
to the consignor i.e. Mr. Abdul Munna Ansari in London.
6. The SIIB officers had a conversation with Mr. Abdul Munna Ansari who
informed them that he was running a tailoring business called M/s Munna
Fashion House in London, UK. According to the SIIB, the parcels were being
incorrectly described as 'gifts' whereas in fact, they were of commercial
quantity and were being sent for the purpose of business.
7. After furnishing the incident report dated 28th December, 2018, SIIB
wrote a letter dated 22nd February, 2019 to the Customs Department seeking
suspension of the Petitioner's registration which led to the Show Cause Notice
dated 01st March, 2019 (hereinafter, 'the SCN') being issued to the Petitioner.
Vide the SCN, the registration of the Petitioner was suspended with immediate
effect in the following terms:
8. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a reply to the SCN on 25th March, 2019
and requested for revocation of the suspension of its registration. A
representation dated 6th April, 2019 was also made by the Petitioner for
revoking the suspension of registration and an appeal was also filed by the
Petitioner to this effect.
9. The Chief Commissioner of Customs, vide order dated 17th May, 2019,
rejected the appeal and in the meantime, the enquiry officer Mr. Bhagwat
Prasad Sharma submitted an inquiry report dated 24th May, 2019 (hereinafter,
'the inquiry report'). The conclusion in the inquiry report was as under:-
"CONCLUSION OF THE INQUIRY REPORT
I find that the said authorized courier has not violated
the clause (iii), (v) and (vii) of Sub-regulation No. (1)
of Regulation No. 12 of the Courier Imports and
Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing)
Regulations, 2010."
Thus, the Inquiry report concluded that the Petitioner had not violated
Regulation (12)(1)(iii), (v) and (vii) of the 2010 Regulations.
10. After the above inquiry report, a disagreement note was generated on
31st May, 2019 by the Office of Commissioner of Customs (Airport &
General), expressing disagreement in respect of the inquiry report. The
disagreement note recorded as under:-
"6.2.2. Thus, it is established that the said courier
company failed to notice that the consignor is running
a business of stitching clothes and are importing
commercial goods in the garb of Gifts, which are being
sent by same consignor to the same consignee/ her
family members, at the same address, repeatedly at
frequent intervals and the same goods are being re-
exported after stitching: The consignee himself
accepted before SIIB officers that the imported goods
are to be returned by them after stitching.
7. Thus, based on the above discussion, it appears that
the findings of Inquiry Officer that contravention of
Regulation 12(1)(iii), 12(1)(v) & 12(1)(vii) of
CIER,2010 not being violated, are not based on facts.
Therefore, I intend to disagree with the report of the
inquiry officer and tend to infer that the violations of
the Regulation 12(1) (iii). 12(1)(v) & 12(1)(vii) of
CIER,2010, appear to have been proved.
8. In view of the above, and in terms of provision of
Regulation of CIER,2010, the inquiry report along with
this disagreement note is hereby forwarded to M/s. Dart
Air Services (P) Ltd., Express House, A-50/4, Mayapuri,
Phase-1, New Delhi -110064 holding Courier
Registration No. DEL/POL/COUR/11/2001 valid upto
17.09.2027 and the Noticee is required to submit its
reply to the Commissioner of Customs (Airport &
General) within 60 days of issuance of this
disagreement note.
9. The noticee authorised courier is further informed
that in case of their failure to submit their reply within
60 days of the communication of Inquiry Report and /or
not appearing for a personal hearing on the date and
time fixed for the same, or not complying with the
directions as above, the case shall be decided by the
Adjudicating, authority ex-parte, on the basis of
evidences already on record, without any further
reference to them."
As per the above disagreement note, the Petitioner had violated the
Regulations. The Inquiry Report along with the disagreement note was then
served upon the Petitioner, who was to file a reply thereto.
11. This disagreement note was challenged in the present petition. During
the pendency of this writ petition, order dated 26th August, 2019 was passed
to the following effect:-
"ORDER
In exercise of powers conferred in terms of Regulation
13 read with Regulation 14 of CIER, 2010:
(i) I refrain from revoking the courier Registration
No. DEL/POL/COUR/11/2001 dated 28.09.2001 valid
up to 17.09.2027 of M/s Dart Air Services (P) Ltd., as
proposed in the Show Cause Notice cum Suspension
Order No.
39/MK/Suspension/Policy/2019 dated 01.03.2019.
(ii) I refrain from forfeiting the security submitted at the
time of issuance of the courier Registration No.
DEL/POL/COUR/11/2001 dated 28.09.2001 valid up to
17.09.2027 by M/s Dart Air Services (P) Ltd., as
proposed in the Show Cause Notice cum Suspension
Order No. 39/ MK/ Suspension/ Policy/2019.
(iii) However, I impose a penalty of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) Dart Ltd., Registration
No. DEL/POL/COUR/11/2001 dated 28.09.2001 valid
up to 17.09.2027 under the provisions of Regulation 14
of CIER, 2010 and caution them to be more careful in
future in complying with provisions of CIER, 2010."
As per the above order dated 26th August 2019, the courier registration of the
Petitioner was not revoked. However the Petitioner was found to be in
violation of the Regulations and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. A
challenge to the above order was permitted to be added vide order dated 16th
and an amended writ petition was filed. Thus the order dated 26th August
2019, is also under challenge in the present writ petition
12. The submissions of Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, ld. Counsel for the
Petitioner is that under the Regulations, 2010, once the Inquiry report had
held that the Petitioner was not in violation of any of the clauses under
Regulation 12, the Commissioner of Customs does not have the jurisdiction
to impose any penalty. He places reliance upon Regulation 13 in support of
his submissions.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Joshi, SSC, CBIC relies upon Regulation
13A(vii) which stipulates that after the inquiry report is submitted, the
Commissioner of Customs can pass such orders as it deems fit.
14. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made and has
perused the material on record. The relevant provisions of Regulations, 2010
are set out below:-
"Regulation 12. Obligations of Authorised Courier -
(1) An Authorised Courier shall -
(i) obtain an authorisation, from each of the consignees
or consignors of the imported goods for whom or from
whom such Courier has imported such goods; or
consignees or consignors of such export goods which
such Courier proposes to export, to the effect that the
Authorised Courier may act as agent of such consignee
or consignor, as the case may be, for clearance of such
imported or export goods by the proper officer;
[Provided that for import of documents, gifts and
samples, and low value dutiable consignments for which
declaration have been filed in, Form-B or the Courier
Bill of Entry-XI(CBE-XI), Form C or the Courier Bill of
Entry-XII(CBE-XII) or Form-D or Courier Bill of
Entry- XIII(CBE-XIII) respectively, the authorization
may be obtained at the time of delivery of the
consignment to consignee subject to the production of
consignors authorisation at pre-clearance stage and
retention of authorisation obtained from the consignee
for a period of one year or date of Audit by Customs,
whichever is earlier.]
(ii) file electronic declarations, for clearance of
imported or export goods, through a person who has
passed the examination referred to in regulation 8 or
regulation 19 of the 2[Customs Brokers Licensing
Regulations, 2013] and who are duly authorised under
section 146 of the Act;
[Provided that a transition period upto 31st December,
2011 shall be allowed to the Authorised Courier for
fulfillment of the obligation in so far as it relates to
examination referred to in regulation 8 of the 2
[Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013].
(iii) advise his consignor or consignee to comply with
the provisions of the Act, rules and regulations made
thereunder and in case of non-compliance thereof, he
shall bring the matter to the notice of the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of
Customs;
(iv) verify the antecedent, correctness of Importer
Exporter Code (IEC) Number, identity of his client and
the functioning of his client in the declared address by
using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data
or information;
(v) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness
and completeness of any information which he submits
to the proper officer with reference to any work related
to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods;
(vi) not withhold information communicated to him by
an officer of customs, relating to assessment and
clearance of imported goods as well as inspection,
examination and Clearance of export goods, from a
consignor or consignee who is entitled to such
information;
(vii) not withhold any information relating to
assessment and clearance of imported goods or of
export goods, from the Assessing Officer;
(viii) not attempt to influence the conduct of any officer
of Customs in any matter pending before such officer or
his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation,
duress or offer of any special inducement or promise of
advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or
other thing or value;
(ix) maintain records and accounts in such form and
manner as may be directed from time to time by an
Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy
Commissioner or Customs for a period of five years and
submit them for inspection to the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs or an officer authorised by
him, wherever required; and
(x) abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules,
regulations, notifications and orders issued thereunder.
Regulation 13. Suspension or revocation of
registration of authorised courier. -
(1) The 1 [Principal Commissioner of Customs or
Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be] may
revoke the registration of an Authorised Courier and
also pass an order for forfeiture of security on any of the
following grounds namely:-
(a) failure of the Authorised Courier to comply with any
of the conditions of the bond executed by him under
regulation 11;
(b) failure of the Authorised Courier to comply with any
of the provisions of these regulations;
(c) misconduct on the part of Authorised Courier
whether within the jurisdiction of the said 1 [Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner] or anywhere else,
which in the opinion of the [Principal Commissioner or
Commissioner] renders him unfit to transact any
business in the Customs airport:
2. [ ***]
Provided 2 [* * *] that, in case the 1 [Principal
Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs,
as the case may be] considers that any of such grounds
against an Authorised courier shall not be established
prima facie without an inquiry in the matter, he may
conduct an inquiry to determine the ground and in the
meanwhile pending the completion of such inquiry, may
suspend the registration of the Authorised Courier:
Provided 3 [further that] if no ground is established
against the Authorised Courier, the registration so
suspended shall be restored.
(2) Any Authorised Courier or the officer of the Customs
authorised by the 1 [Principal Chief Commissioner of
Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs, as the case
may be] in this behalf, if aggrieved by the order of 1
[Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner
of Customs, as the case may be] passed under sub-
regulation (1), may represent to the 1 [Principal Chief
Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of
Customs, as the case may be] in writing against such
order within sixty days of communication of the order to
the Authorised Courier, and the 1 [Principal Chief
Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of
Customs, as the case may be] shall, after providing the
opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned,
dispose of the representation as expeditiously as may be
possible.
Regulation 13A. Procedure for revoking registration
under regulation 13.
(1) TO (6) ..........
(7) The 2 [Principal Commissioner of Customs or
Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be] shall,
after considering the report of the inquiry and the
representation thereon, if any, made by the Authorised
Courier, pass such orders as he deems fit."
Regulation 14. Penalty. -
An Authorised Courier, who contravenes any of the
provisions of these regulations or abets such
contravention or who fails to comply with any
provision of these regulations with which it was his
obligation to comply, shall be liable to a penalty which
may extend to fifty thousand rupees."
15. As per Regulation 12, an Authorised Courier acts as an Agent of the
Consignor or Consignee. There are various obligations that are imposed on
an approved Courier agency, such as -
i. Filing of electronic declarations for clearance of goods through
persons engaged by it as per the Regulations;
ii. Advising consignors and consignees for compliance of the
provisions of the Act - for e.g., to advise them not to send
prohibited goods or restricted goods through courier; to not
misdeclare the goods etc.,;
iii. Verifying the authenticity of the IEC code and the identity of the
client by independent and credible information/sources;
iv. Exercising due diligence in respect of the paperwork and
information submitted;
v. Being candid and not withholding information communicated to
the authorised courier by the Customs and diligently informing the
Consignor/Consignee of the same;
vi. Disclosing all relevant information relating to import or export of
goods;
vii. Refrain from exercising any undue influence on customs officials
through any improper methods;
viii. Maintaining of proper records and submit the same for inspection
when called upon to do so.
16. Under Regulation 13, the registration of an Authorised Courier can be
revoked on the grounds specified therein such as non-compliance of its
obligations, misconduct etc. A perusal of the Regulation 13A would show
that the enquiry report itself is not binding and the Principal Commissioner
or Commissioner of Customs can consider the enquiry report and pass such
orders as may be necessary. The submission, therefore, that the enquiry
report had completely exonerated the Petitioner and, therefore, no penalty
could have been imposed, would not be tenable submission. It is further
noted that under Regulation 14, if the Authorized courier has acted contrary
to any provisions of the Regulations, 2010 or abets any contravention, or
fails to comply with the provisions of the Regulations, 2010, the
Commissioner of Customs is well within his rights to take action.
17. In the present case, after the SIIB's investigation, there were various
facts which were revealed that commercial goods were being sent under the
disguise of `gifts'. The Courier Agency failed to notice the same which
clearly shows non-exercise of due-diligence. In fact, the Commissioner of
Customs, in its order dated 26th August, 2019 upheld the inquiry report only
to the extent that there is no violation of Regulation 12 (1)(iii) and 12 (1)(vii).
However, insofar as the Regulation 12(1)(v) is concerned, required level of
due diligence may not have been exercised by the Petitioner leading to
imposition of penalty.
18. A perusal of the final order which has been passed on 26th August,
2019 would show that the Commissioner of Customs has refrained from
revoking the courier registration of the Petitioner and has also not forfeited
the security submitted by the Petitioner at the time of issuance of the courier
registration.
19. However, a penalty of Rs 50,000/- has been imposed on the Petitioner
in the order dated 26th August, 2019. Such an order would be well within
the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in terms of Regulations 13A(7) and
Regulation 14 of the Regulations, 2010.
20. In fact, courier agencies, such as the Petitioner do have a responsibility
to ensure that whenever there is any suspicious courier packets being
delivered or being transacted through them, due diligence ought to be
exercised and if there is any suspicion, the same ought to be reported to the
concerned authority. Regulation 12 imposes significant obligations on the
courier agencies and the same ought to be taken seriously and services have
to be performed with due diligence.
21. Thus, in the overall fact situation, this Court is of the opinion that the
order passed on 26th August, 2019 is clearly within the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Customs and the penalty imposed of Rs 50,000/- in terms
of Regulation 14 does not warrant any interference.
22. Under these circumstances, the writ petition challenging the order 26th
August, 2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs. The penalty of
Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited by the Petitioner in accordance with law
within a period of four weeks.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2025
sk/ss
