Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (4) TMI 1005

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. This case has been made and the licence has been revoked not only taking the alleged communication from DGARM as conclusive proof that the exporters did not exist but also inferring from it that the appellant has not conducted the verification as per Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The SCN did not even supply a copy of the communication from the DGARM to the appellant, let alone the details of its inquiries which led to the conclusion that the exporters did not exist. The entire case, therefore, is not built on conclusive evidence. The Commissioner found it proper to deprive the appellant and its employees of their livelihood in such a casual and callous manner. The impugned ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... #8377; 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) furnished by them; (iii) I impose penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on M/s Perfect Cargo and Logistics. 3. The facts which lead up to the issue of the impugned order are that the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management [ DGARM ] of the Central Board of Indirect taxes and Customs analysed the data, identified risky exporters involved in IGST refund frauds and got some feedback from the field formations and found that some exporters could not be verified physically (were untraceable) and sent an official communication by email dated 17.8.2020 to the Commissioner. Of these exporters there were about 24 exporters whose exports were processed by the appellant as the Customs Broker. The Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e number of the exporters are untraceable, it appears that the CB has failed to comply with the obligations cast upon it under Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR 2018 and revoked its licence, and imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- upon it. There is no allegation of any other violation by the appellant Customs Broker in the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that not only has the appellant fulfilled the requirement under Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 by obtaining all the required documents from the exporters in terms of CBEC s Circular No. 9/2010-Customs dated 8.4.2010 but it also submitted them to the Commissioner during the adjudication proceedings. 8. The short question which falls for our consideration in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bills on behalf of the 24 exporters which the appellant is not disputing and secondly, the report from the DGARM says that the exporters do not exist. Since DGARM sent an email stating that the exporters did not exist, the inquiry officer concluded the appellant must have violated Regulation 10(n) and must not have carried out the necessary verification. The finding in the impugned order that the appellant has violated Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018, is also based on nothing but a communication which the Commissioner is said to have received from DGARM. Neither the communication nor the enquiries which lead the DGARM to send it have been shared with the appellant or produced before us. Regulation 10(n) reads as follows: 10. Obligations .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e certificates? f) Can the appellant be faulted for trusting the certificates issued by various Government authorities? g) Or were the documents forged and not actually issued by the authorities? If so, how did the Customs EDI system accept such fake numbers? h) If there was any fraud or forgery in the documents, was the appellant involved in it or had the appellant simply accepted the documents in good faith? i) Has the officer who conducted the verification been examined and cross examined to determine if the exporters existed or not at the time of the export? j) If the exporter did not exist physically at the address, was he operating from some other address? If so, when did he move? k) Given the documents and evidence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates