2023 (6) TMI 1261 - HC - Customs

Levy of Penalty on Customs Broker License - Failure to advice their client only to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and other allied acts and rules and regulation - failure to verify the correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, goods and services tax identification tax (GSTIN) identity of client - Contravention of regulation 10(d) and regulation 10(n) of The CBLR. Failure to advice their client only to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and other allied acts and rules and regulation - HELD THAT - The learned Tribunal on facts found that the value as has been given in the Bill of Entry was enhanced by the approved valuer and further enhanced by the assessing officer of the Customs Department. Therefore, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the background of those facts the respondent Customs Broker cannot be held guilty for not able to find out correct value of the goods, as could be seen from the facts of the case that the valuation which was done by the department was much higher than the valuation as suggested by the Government approved valuer which was higher than the value which was declared in the Bill of Entry filed by the respondent. Therefore, on facts the tribunal has come to such a conclusion, we cannot disturb the said finding while examining the correctness of the order passed by the learned tribunal in an appeal filed under section 130 of the Act as we are required to see whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, the factual finding rendered by the tribunal cannot be interfered. Failure to verify the correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, goods and services tax identification tax (GSTIN) identity of client - HELD THAT - The Tribunal noted that admittedly the appellant has taken up such verification on the basis of the documents which were available in the Government website and this was held to be sufficient compliance of regulation 10(n) of the Act - the Tribunal on facts found that it is not the case of the revenue that the documents for undertaking the KYC of the importer were not taken by the respondents and the only allegation was that the respondent Customs Broker had not physically met and physically verified the premises. The matter being entirely factual no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the delay in filing the appeal, setting aside of the order by the Tribunal under Customs Act, 1962, violation of regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, and the applicability of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The Court noted a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal. After perusing the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, the Court found sufficient cause for the delay and allowed the application, thereby condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Setting Aside of Tribunal's Order:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata. The Tribunal's order set aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Allegations were made against the respondent Customs Broker for contravening regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR.

Violation of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n):
The Tribunal considered the allegations of violation of regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of the Act. It was noted that the respondent Customs Broker had failed to advise their client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the Customs Broker had undertaken verification based on documents available on the Government website, which was deemed sufficient compliance with regulation 10(n).

Applicability of Supreme Court Decision:
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra and Company was relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal examined the facts of the case, including valuation issues, and concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's findings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision to set aside the findings against the respondent Customs Broker was upheld by the Court. It was established that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, emphasizing that the matter was entirely factual. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal did not impact any pending challenges to previous orders.