9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 14 read with Regulation 17 of Customs Broker License Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018, for short) and also forfeited the security deposit furnished by the appellant. Further the Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 and 18 of CBLR 2018. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Customs Broker operating in Mumbai and Nhava Sheva also. The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai issued three prohibition orders dt. 03/01/2019, 16/01/2019 and 20/02/2018. These prohibition orders were issued on the ground that the appellant had filed certain shipping bills on behalf of M/s. A.R.K. Enterprises, M/s. YK Trends and M/s. Otex Overseas and that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the provisions of the CBLR 2013 / 2018 and without considering the decisions rendered by the Tribunal and High Court. He further submitted that in para 13.1 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the Customs Broker has not directly interacted with the IEC holder, hence is guilty of violating Regulation 11(d) of CBLR 2013. The learned counsel submitted that this finding of the Commissioner that the appellant had not directly interacted with the IEC holder is also factually incorrect. Further he argued that in the statements dt. 25/05/2017, referred in paras 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the impugned order, the G card holder and Power of Attorney of the appellant at Mumbai, Shri Mohammed Yusuf Siddique has clearly stated that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of documents /information but not the physical verification of the premises. Further the Customs Broker had followed the KYC norms as prescribed in Board's Circular No.9/2010-Cus dt. 08/04/2010. Further the Customs Broker has obtained the copies of the PAN card, Aadhar card, GST Registration Certificate, IEC certificate from all three exporters concerned. This fact is recorded in the impugned order by the Commissioner recorded in the statements of Shri Mohammad Yusuf Siddique reproduced in paras 3.4.1., 3.4.2. and 3.4.3. The learned counsel submitted that it is a settled law that physical verification of the premises of the IEC holder is not required. For this, he relied upon the following judgments:- a. G.N.D. Cargo Movers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. CC, Tuticorin [Order dt. 13/10/2017 in CMA No.730 of 2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras] c. Impexnet Logists Vs. CC(General) [2016(338) ELT 347 (Del.)] d. R.M. Purushotham Vs. CC, Chennai [Final Order No.40609/2019 dt. 26/03/2019 passed by CESTAT, Chennai] 5.1. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the time limit of 90 days prescribed under Regulation 17(5) is for submission of report and in the present case, the Inquiry Report has been submitted within the time prescribed under Regulation 17(5). he also submitted that the time limit prescribed under the CBLR regulations are only directory and not mandatory as held in the following decisions:- a. Leo Cargo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN),identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; 6.2. Further we find that in the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the appellant has not directly interacted with the IEC holders and is guilty of violation of Regulation 17(d) of CBLR 2013. This finding is factually incorrect because in the statements of Mr. Mohammad Yusuf Siddique, G Card holder and Power of Attorney of the appellant at Mumbai, he has stated in his statement dt. 25/05/2017 that he had interacted with the IEC holders. Further we find that as per the Commissioner, the appellant has not brought to the knowledge of the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir willingness to pay differential duty, fine and penalty, it cannot be concluded that Customs Broker did not exercise due diligence to ascertain correctness of the information. If the said fact only is relevant for holding against the Customer Broker, then in each and every case of mis-declaration by the importer, it can be concluded that Customs Broker did not suitably informed his clients. There has to be some evidence on record to show that either the Customs Broker was aware of such mis-declaration and suppressed the same with a malafide mind or he has taken efforts to get the goods cleared from the Customs on the basis of wrong declaration made by him or has connived with the importer so as to aid and abet the wrong declaration. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
