9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify invoking irregularity under the provisions of the CBLR, 2018. The penalty is imposed without any justifiable reasons by the Commissioner - the appeal is allowed and the penalty levied is deleted. - Customs Appeal No. 40152 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 42303/2021 - Dated:- 7-9-2021 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. K. Nancy, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. K. Komathi, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is a Customs Broker, clearing and forwarding agent and holding Regular Licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.02.2020 was issued alleging that the appellant had contravened various provisions under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any non-compliance to the customs authorities also will not be relevant as the CB was aware of concealment and customs authorities at Mumbai too found out the smuggling attempt only during examination of the goods. 31. The only lapse on part of the CB is that the address of the importer was not physically verified, which by their submissions in reply to the SCN and at the time of PH, was not deliberate as the address was available in all KYC documents issued by various government agencies and the CBLR rules does not mandate that the same needs to be physically verified before taking on any work. Hence, it is very clear that the Customs Broker has effectively defended the allegations made against them. 32. Accordingly, the charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as Customs House Agent and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs; (b) transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an employee duly approved by The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs; (c) not represent a client before an officer of Customs in any matter to which he, as an officer of the Department of Customs gave personal consideration, or as to the facts of which he gained knowledge, while in Government service; (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hole or any part of any book, paper or other record, relating to his transactions as a Customs House Agent which is sought or may be sought by the Commissioner of Customs; (k) maintain records and accounts in such form and manner as may be directed from time to time by a Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs and submit them for inspection to the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs or an officer authorised by him whenever required; (l) ensure that all documents, such as bills of entry and shipping bills delivered in the Customs Station by him show the name of the importer or exporter, as the case may be, and the name of the Customs House Agent, prominently at the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire into and verify the genuineness of the IE Code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there is a presumption that an appropriate background check in this regard i.e. KYC etc. would have been done by the customs authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the goods mentioned in the shipping bills did not reflect the truth of the consignment sought to be exported. In the absence of such knowledge, there cannot be any mens rea attributed to the appellant or its proprietor. Whatever may be the value of the goods, in the present case, simply because upon inspection of the goods they did not corroborate with what was declared in the shipping bills, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the client if wrong information were deliberately supplied to the CHA. Hence there could be no guilt, wrong, fault or penalty on the appellant apropos the contents of the shipping bills. Apropos any doubt about the issuance of the IE Code to M/s. H.S. Impex, it was for the respondents to take appropriate action. Furthermore, the inquiry report revealed that there was no delay in processing the documents by the appellant under Regulation 13(n). (Emphasized in bold, for clarity) 4.2 In view of the above, the role and responsibilities of the Customs Broker are limited, more so when the IE code has already been issued by the concerned authority and hence, the Customs Broker cannot be found fault with. 5. Moreover, the Inquiry Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
