9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ything required for importing the Vontron RO machines. However, he simultaneously has deposed that the IEC is obtained in the name of his firm with his consent as he got convinced with the offer given to him by Shri Sandeep Jain that he has not to take any troubles and pains and efforts of importing things except allowing the goods to have been imported on his IEC code against receiving 5% of the profits. This deposition of Shri Anil Ahuja of M/s. Durga Enterprises has fully been corroborated by Shri Sandeep Jain himself. Further perusal of statement of appellant himself reveals that he had met the proprietors/IEC holders of four impugned importing firms M/s. Arvi International, M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, M/s. Swift Enterprises and M/s. Durga Enterprises. He deposed that KYC of four of these firms was done by him. For completing the said procedure, he met four of the IEC holders at his office, verified all original documents i.e. IEC, GST, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, cancelled checks and bank statements. From the statements on record there is apparent consensual arrangement between Shri Sandeep Jain and the IEC holders which has nowhere been barred under CBLR, 2018. In any circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant as their CB. It was also observed that one Shri Sandeep Jain is the mastermind and the beneficial owner for all the imports made by those six firms who have deliberately mis-declared the value and description of goods by willful misstatement and suppression with an intent to evade payment of customs duty of Rs.46,27,001/-, Rs.17,90,550/-, Rs. 24,62,140/-, Rs.1,72,24,974/-, Rs.17,38,341/-, Rs.1,20,80,780/-respectively. They all were served with a Show Cause Notice bearing No. 05/2018 dated 29.07.2020 vide which the aforesaid demand was proposed to be recovered with the proposal of confiscation of the goods. The said show cause notice was served upon all the aforesaid six importers as well as said Shri Sandeep Jain. 2. The said show cause notice was forwarded to the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) vide letter No. 77/2017 dated 04.09.2020 by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD- Import, New Delhi requesting to initiate an action under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) against the CB. Acting upon the same as offence report proceedings against CB/appellant were initiated under Regulation 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly verified by the appellant. Six of the importers had introduced Shri Sandeep Jain to the appellant, in person, and informed him to be their representative to deal with the appellant. Hence, there was nothing to be advised to the importers or to be brought to the notice of the authorities. The violation of both these provisions has wrongly been alleged. All the findings in the order under challenge are alleged either to be wrong or to be based on surmises and assumptions. It has wrongly been alleged that CHA/CB was aware that the IEC have been misused. The entire case law as has been relied upon by the adjudicating authority to confirm the violation is denied to be applicable in case of the appellant. With these submissions the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions, learned DR has mentioned that during investigation by DRI, four IEC addresses were found to be untraceable whose import consignments were handled by the appellant. None of the proprietors of six of the importing firms appeared before DRI Enquiry Officer. Shri Sandeep Jain also did not cooperate in the investigation as he failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(1) of the CBLR, 2018. However, Commissioner of Customs (Airport General) as per provisions of Regulations 16(2) supra granted personal hearing to the appellant on 07.10.2020, which was duly attended by the appellant. In compliance of the Regulation 16(2) OIO No. 88/2020 dated 20.10.2020 was passed revoking the suspension of the appellant s license. The relevant para is reproduced below: Whereas the adjudicating authority further found that continuation of suspension of CB License will not only deprive the notice of its bread and butter but will also jeopardize the future of its employees, who also earn their livelihood from the activities undertaken by the CB, especially, during the current situation of COVID-19 pandemic its adverse impact on global economy and accordingly taken a lenient view in the matter and revoked the suspension of the Customs Broker License No. R- 25/DEL/DUS/2012 (PAN: AACCN9502H) vide OIO No. 88/2020 dated 20.10.2020. 7. Hence the appellant s submission is that further show cause notice dated 29.12.2020 under Regulation 17 of the CBLR, 2018 should not have been issued after the suspension order was revoked. We are not in agreement of this sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be 11. We observe that the adjudicating authority below has confirmed the violation of the above said provision on the basis that none of the IEC holders responded to the summons as were issued to them. Even Shri Sandeep Jain also did not cooperate the investigation as he repeatedly failed to appear before the enquiry officers in response to the summons issued to him. Thus, it is apparent that CB has failed to advice his clients to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the other allied acts and rules and regulations. Based on these observations the adjudicating authority below has held that appellant violated Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018. 12. We observe, from the record that Shri Sandeep Jain did appear before the investigating authorities. His statement was also got recorded even prior the issuance of show cause notice by DRI i.e. on 19.06.2018. Otherwise also, we do not find any provision either in the Customs Act or under C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.04.2010 has also been relied upon holding that a detailed guideline about the list of documents to be verified and to be obtained from the client or customer is duly provided in the said circular. But the CB is held to have failed to exercise due diligence and thus has grossly violated the KYC guidelines of the said circular. 16. From the perusal of statements on record, we observe that all the six importing firms herein had duly applied for IEC and the Directorate General of Foreign Trade issued IEC. Though Shri Sandeep Jain was taking care of the transactions of these firms. These statements have been the sole basis for the order under challenge. We observe from the statement of Shri Anil Ahuja, Proprietor of M/s. Durga Enterprises that he has deposed about the impugned imports to have been made at the instance of Shri Sandeep Jain who only had interacted with the exporters, negotiated the prices and had done everything required for importing the Vontron RO machines. However, he simultaneously has deposed that the IEC is obtained in the name of his firm with his consent as he got convinced with the offer given to him by Shri Sandeep Jain that he has not to take any troubles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, when are read as a whole and in the light of the other statements so recorded, it comes as a clear corroborative deposition that the appellant had met the IEC holders, in person. They handed over to him all such documents as are required under KYC guidelines circular and they acknowledged Shri Sandeep Jain to be their representative for all dealings with appellant/CB with respect to the imports to be made by these IEC horder. Once this is the fact then mere knowledge that Shri Sandeep Jain was the representative of the importing firms does not amount to the violation of 10(n) especially when the IEC holders were found available. 20. Further, we are of the opinion that from the statements on record there is apparent consensual arrangement between Shri Sandeep Jain and the IEC holders which has nowhere been barred under CBLR, 2018. In any circumstance CB/appellant cannot be held responsible for the reason that admittedly he is not the party to the alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation nor department could produce any evidence that the appellant had been a beneficiary of this arrangement. 21. Though with respect to M/s. Swift Enterprises and M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
