9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 179 - AT - CustomsSuspension of license of Customs Broker - Violation of principles of natural justice - no proper notice about the SCN which was issued by DRI which was the basis for these proceedings was given to the appellant - Mis-declaration of value and description of goods - willful misstatement and suppression with an intent to evade payment of customs duty - HELD THAT - It is observed that all the six importing firms herein had duly applied for IEC and the Directorate General of Foreign Trade issued IEC. Though Shri Sandeep Jain was taking care of the transactions of these firms. These statements have been the sole basis for the order under challenge. It is observed from the statement of Shri Anil Ahuja, Proprietor of M/s. Durga Enterprises that he has deposed about the impugned imports to have been made at the instance of Shri Sandeep Jain who only had interacted with the exporters, negotiated the prices and had done everything required for importing the Vontron RO machines. However, he simultaneously has deposed that the IEC is obtained in the name of his firm with his consent as he got convinced with the offer given to him by Shri Sandeep Jain that he has not to take any troubles and pains and efforts of importing things except allowing the goods to have been imported on his IEC code against receiving 5% of the profits. This deposition of Shri Anil Ahuja of M/s. Durga Enterprises has fully been corroborated by Shri Sandeep Jain himself. Further perusal of statement of appellant himself reveals that he had met the proprietors/IEC holders of four impugned importing firms M/s. Arvi International, M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, M/s. Swift Enterprises and M/s. Durga Enterprises. He deposed that KYC of four of these firms was done by him. For completing the said procedure, he met four of the IEC holders at his office, verified all original documents i.e. IEC, GST, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, cancelled checks and bank statements. From the statements on record there is apparent consensual arrangement between Shri Sandeep Jain and the IEC holders which has nowhere been barred under CBLR, 2018. In any circumstance CB/appellant cannot be held responsible for the reason that admittedly he is not the party to the alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation nor department could produce any evidence that the appellant had been a beneficiary of this arrangement. The exports for these two firms also have been made during the same proximity of time and imported goods have been transported through the same transporter Vijay Transport Company to the same godown at Paschim Vihar and Mundka Village in Delhi where used to go the imported goods of remaining importing firms. These godowns have been acknowledged by Shri Sandeep Jain. In the given circumstances irrespective Shri Sandeep Jain is admittedly the beneficiary of imports made by six importers but the fact remains is that all importers have requisite documents, all of them are actually existing and it was a consensual arrangement between them and said Shri Sandeep Jain with no benefit to the appellant out of the said arrangement. Appellant otherwise was admittedly having all the requisite documents of these importing firms which he admittedly produced before the department. Thus, the appellant has not violated Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. The adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the statements on record - if the statements would have been read as a whole, apparently there is no violation of 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 is observed to have been committed by the appellant - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Alleged violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018. 3. Alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. Summary: 1. Violation of principles of natural justice: The appellant, a Customs Broker (CB), argued that the order under challenge should be set aside due to a violation of principles of natural justice, as no proper notice about the show cause notice dated 29.07.2020 issued by DRI was given to the appellant. The CB was not made a noticee in the said show cause notice where the mis-declaration and gross undervaluation were alleged. The suspension of the CB's license on 29.09.2020 was done without giving any cogent reason, and subsequent personal hearings and revocation of suspension did not warrant the issuance of a further show cause notice dated 29.12.2020 proposing revocation of the license. 2. Alleged violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018: Regulation 10(d) requires the CB to advise the client to comply with the provisions of the Act and bring non-compliance to the notice of the authorities. The adjudicating authority confirmed the violation based on the non-response of IEC holders to summons and non-cooperation of Shri Sandeep Jain during the investigation. However, the Tribunal observed that Shri Sandeep Jain did appear before the investigating authorities, and the CB provided all requisite documents. The Tribunal held that there is no provision in the Customs Act or CBLR, 2018, that fixes responsibility on the CB to ensure the attendance of importers before investigation authorities. Thus, the CB did not violate Regulation 10(d). 3. Alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018: Regulation 10(n) requires the CB to verify the correctness of the IEC number, GSTIN, identity of the client, and the functioning of the client at the declared address. The adjudicating authority concluded that the CB failed to comply with this regulation as the importers were untraceable. However, the Tribunal observed that the CB had met the IEC holders, verified all original documents, and was introduced to Shri Sandeep Jain as their representative. The Tribunal held that the CB complied with the KYC guidelines, and mere knowledge of Shri Sandeep Jain being the representative does not amount to a violation of Regulation 10(n), especially when the IEC holders were found available. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, holding that there was no violation of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, by the CB. The appeal was allowed.
|
