9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or clearance of Factory Stuffing Containers at MSWC CFS suspected the genuineness of the factory stuffing permission produced by M/s. Neminath Industries for the above-mentioned two Shipping Bills. The said Factory Stuffing Permission (FSP) produced by the exporter was sent for verification to FSP Cell, JNCH on 08.11.2016 wherein it was informed that the said FSP letter was not issued by their office. 10.11.2016. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Central Intelligence Unit (CIU), JNCH for investigation. 11.11.2016 The goods contained in the above mentioned containers were examined by the officers of CIU, JNCH at CONCOR DRT CFS under Panchnama. During further investigation, it was found that the invoices submitted to the Central Excise Department for the subject consignments at the time of factory stuffing were different from the invoices produced for Customs clearance. 11.11.2016 Thereafter a search was conducted at the premises of M/s. Neminath Industries situated at Gala No.6, Bhayander Industrial Estate, CSM Road, Bhayander East, Thane by a team of officers of CIU, JNCH and Central Excise, Thane-II office. However, it was found that Gala No.6 does not exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as summoned to produce the copy of Aadhar Card, PAN card and copies of emails / documents received from Mr. Tarun Popatlal Jain from email ID [email protected] or any other email ID. In response to the aforesaid summons, the Appellant vide letter dated 25.04.2022 provided the documents as sought in the summons. 14.03.2023 An investigation report received from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai dated 14.03.2023 along with investigation report dated 10.01.2023 outlining that the Appellant worked as Customs Broker on behalf of M/s. Adinath Industries without verifying the relevant documents necessary for Customs Broker work and for necessary action against the Appellant. 31.03.2023 Show Cause Notice No.2554/2022-23/ADC/CEAC/CAC/JNCH was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai 24.07.2023 On the basis of above-mentioned investigation report dated 14.03.2023 and 10.01.2023, Order No. KND-CUSTM-000-COM-02-2023-24 ("impugned order-1") was passed against the Appellant wherein it was held that the Appellant has failed to verify the identity of clients and functioning at the declared address and dealt with Mr. Lokesh Bansal and Mr. Tarun Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner should record the reason as to why he considers it an appropriate case where the immediate suspension is necessary. Learned counsel argued that no reason was given at the time of suspension as to why immediate suspension was necessary. 4. Learned counsel further pointed out that role of the appellant was limited filing 29 shipping bills out of 1474 shipping bills under challenge. He argued that he had conducted due diligence in terms of Regulation 10 of CBLR 2018 by taking into account all the relevant documents provided by the alleged exporter for the export of goods like Aadhar Card, Pan Card, IEC Certificate etc before filing the shipping bill. In this background, it cannot be said that the appellant violated regulation 10 of CBLR 2018. He argued that so long as the exporter holds a valid IEC code, PAN and submits all such relevant KYC documents to custom broker, on the basis of which the custom broker filed shipping bills, the custom broker cannot be blamed for any alleged mis-declaration by the exporter. He pointed out that in this case the appellant had obtained all KYC documents from the exporter before filing shipping bills. Learned counsel further pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and functioning of the clients at the declared address and dealt with Mr. Lokesh Bansal and Mr. Tarun Jain who claimed to be the exporter. It was alleged that Mr. Tarun Jain was neither the IEC Holder of any of five firms including Ms Adinath Industries nor was holding any post in any of the such firm. The second ground is that address mentioned of IEC of Ms. Adinath Industries and Others were found to be non-existent. The order observes as follows: "4.5 In this regard, I find that the notice has raised pertinent issues pertaining to the issue having taken place many years ago and also that there are no clear indications that the consignments handled by them have not been proved to have involved forged documents. While I do agree that these are valid points, it is also a matter of fact admitted by the notice that they had not dealt with the actual IEC holder. This was not a one-off consignment being handled by the notice that they could pass of non-verification of IEC as genuine mistake. Further, by their own account they had discontinued handling the client on account of payment issues. It therefore goes beyond reasonableness that they have not found it necessary to check the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
