9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer posted in the CFS, a onetime bottle seal has also been affixed. The allegations against the appellants appear to be based on the statements of personnel of the customs broker. Shri S. Muthukrishnan in charge of customs broker in his statement dt.28.8.2017 and Shri N.V.S. Prasad, General Manager of the customs broker in his statement dt. 1.9.2017 have accepted that they have never met the exporter and have not verified the KYC details and genuineness of the IEC holder and failed to notice the difference in the name of the exporter There is certain force in the argument of the appellant that the non-verification of KYC documents per se has not resulted in the committal of any grave offence because of the fact that the goods declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty are sustainable, revocation of customs broker licence cannot be sustained. The forfeiture of security deposit of ₹ 50,000/- and imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- is upheld - the revocation of licence of the customs broker is set aside - appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No. 42770 of 2018 - Final Order No. 41391/2019 - Dated:- 22-11-2019 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate For the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: P. Anjani Kumar This appeal is filed against Order in Original No.66400 / 2018 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exporting firm and that he was not able to explain the reason for non-verification of KYC details. Accordingly, the department issued a show cause notice which culminated in the issuance of the impugned order vide which it was confirmed that the said customs broker has violated the provisions of Regulation 11 and Regulation 17 (9) of CBLR, 2013. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they denied all the allegations in the SCN; in the course of this business, they had handled an export consignment on behalf of M/s.Amrita Export for export of natural slate stone; on collection of investigation DRI issued a SCN, inter alia, proposing imposition of penalty on the customs broker under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) CCE Vs KVS Cargo - 2019 (365) ELT 395 (Del.) (iii) Accurate clearing Shipping Agency Vs CC 2015 (319) ELT 531 (Tri.-Bang.) (iv) CC Vs Accurate Clearing Shipping Agency 2016 (341) ELT 578 (Kar.) (v) G.N.D. Cargo Movers Vs CC - 2017 (357) ELT 1184 (Tri.-Del.) (vi) CC Vs K.M.Ganatra Co. 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC) (vii) Sabin Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC 2019 (367) ELT 200 (Mad.) 4. Ld. A.R for the department on the other hand submits that the customs broker has violated the provisions of Regulation 17 (9) and Regulation 11 (n) of the CBLR, 2013. Non-verification of the KYC details of the exporter was accepted by the personnel of the customs brok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that is beyond the involvement of the customs broker. However, the only issue on which the appellant appear to have erred and were not in a position to identify Shri Rajesh Kumar who was projecting himself as the person in charge of the exporter. Their knowledge, if any, could have helped the administration in nailing the person who has arranged for the transportation and took away the container. Understandably, the verification of KYC norms would not have stopped occurrence of the offence going by the facts of this case. However, we find that the customs broker should have exercised a due diligence in verifying KYC norms and the identity of the exporter and their persons and could have found out the difference in the name of the exporter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty or penalised for violation of the provisions of the Act. In that case, it was held the Customs House Agent is not bound to point out to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs that their acts are in conformity with provisions of the statute or to advise them to act in accordance with law. 12. By the said judgment, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, setting aside the revocation of Custom House Licence of the licence holder by the Commissioner of Customs. In this case also, the custom house licence agent cannot be held liable as the alleged offence took place after his role was over namely, dealing of the container. Once the role of the CHA licence came to over, he cannot be resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
