9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, Customs-New Delhi (Airport and General), New Delhi revoking its Customs Broker Licence, under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 & 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations [CBLR ], 2018, forfeiting its security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The operative part of the impugned order is as follows: "30. In exercise of powers conferred in terms of Regulation 14 read with Regular 17 & 18 of CBLR, 2018 (i) I hereby revoke the CB License No. R-57/DEL/CUS/2015 (PAN: DNTPK4126E) valid upto 20.03.2025 issued to M/s S. Prakash Kushwaha & Co. (ii) I direct the CB to immediately surrender the Original CB License No. R-57/DEL/CUS/2015 (PAN: DNTPK4126E) alongwith all F, G and H Cards issued thereunder. (iii) I order for forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs only) furnished by them. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs.50,000/- on M/s Prakash Kushwaha & Co." 31. This order is being issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the CB or any other person(s)/firm(s) etc. under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules/Regulations framed there under or any other law for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing exporters has been received in some case which is elaborated below. (i) M/S ADVIT ENTERPRISES (07ABKFA5464D1ZI): Remarks of jurisdictional officer (RUD-2): Exporter is not bonafide. Similar adverse report/comments had been given by the jurisdictional authorities in respect of all the exporters mentioned in the above Table-I. 7. There are only two Relied upon documents to the SCN- RUD 1 is an email dated August 17,2020 sent by Deepna Singh, Joint Director, DGARM to the Commissioner stating that 62 Customs Brokers handled consignments for multiple untraceable exporters. RUD 2 is the verification report in respect of Advit Enterprises. In respect of the remaining 14 suspected exporters, no documents by way of evidence was presented either in the SCN or before us. With respect to the remaining 14 suspected exporters, there is nothing in the SCN except the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the SCN reproduced above stating that adverse reports/comments have been given by the jurisdictional authorities which is only an allegation and not evidence in any sense of the term. What remains to be seen is whether based on the sole verification report whether the allegation of violati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR is this report that the exporter was found non-existent and also that there was a huge difference between the inward and outward supplies of the exporter. This is clearly self-contradictory. If the exporter did not exist at all, how were the supplies being made to it and by it? Evidently, the evidence of these supplies must be the GST Returns filed by the appellant which means that the GST officers themselves were also accepting and processing the returns of the exporter which the verifying officer now reported does not exist at all. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted a list and also copies of the KYC documents which it had obtained from each of the 15 exporters listed in the SCN. However, as the SCN has only provided evidence with respect to one viz., Advit Enterprises, we consider only those documents which are as follows. a) KYC Form of CHA b) Authority letter c) Details of Bank Account d) Certificate of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) e) Registration Certificate (GST REG-06) f) PAN Card g) Aadhar Card h) Lease Deed i) Partnership Deed 13. It is undisputed that the GSTIN, P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagar Village, Landmark Near Ambey Bhawan" while the IEC dated 4 July 2019 was issued by the DGFT with the address of the exporter as "LGF Pvt. Shop No. 9, plot no. 54, part of prop No. XVI/10670, Block 4 WEA Karolbagh, New Delhi". The verification report mentions that the verification was done at the latter address but it does not mention anything about the former address. It is possible that any business may change its address and sometimes may not necessarily update its address with all the authorities. It does not prove the non-existence of the exporter, let alone, non-existence of the exporter at that address the time of export. 17. We find that Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and 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. This responsibility does not extend to physically going to the premises of each of the exporters to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. When a Government officer issues a certificate or registration with an addres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This obligation can be broken down as follows: a) Verify the correctness of IEC number b) Verify the correctness of GSTIN c) Verify the identity of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information d) Verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information 21. Of the above, (a) and (b) require verification of the documents which are issued by the Government departments. The IEC number is issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade and the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs of the Government of India or under the Governments of State or Union territory. The question which arises is has the Customs Broker to satisfy himself that these documents or their copies given by the client were indeed issued by the concerned government officers or does it mean that the Customs Broker has to ensure that the officers have correctly issued these documents. In our considered view, Regulation 10(n) does not place an obli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r launch an investigation. So long as it can find some documents which are independent, reliable and authentic to establish the identity of his client, this obligation is fulfilled. Documents such as GSTIN, IEC and PAN card issued etc., certainly qualify as such documents. However, these are not the only documents the Customs Broker could obtain; documents issued by any other officer of the Government or even private parties (so long as they qualify as independent, reliable and authentic) could meet this requirement. While obtaining documents is probably the easiest way of fulfilling this obligation, the Customs broker can also, as an alternative, fulfill this obligation by obtaining data or information. In the factual matrix of this case, we are fully satisfied that the appellant has fulfilled this part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n). 25. The fourth and the last obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents or data or information so long as it is reliable, indep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
