9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is prima-facie contravention of the provisions of Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. The appellant along with his representation dated 22.02.2017, had supplied copies of documents, KYC, reflecting the identity and antecedents of the importer, procured by the client and some of the documents such as authorisation letter dated 1.11.2016 for appointment of CHA, by the importer, M/s Pacific Imports, IEC copy of the importer, TIN, registration of the importer (State), TIN registration of the importer(Central) and proprietor s PAN was submitted at the time of personal hearing on 1.06.2019. The issue of submitting the KYC documents belatedly has been dealt in Multi Wings Clearing Forwarding P.Ltd Vs. C.C. (General),New Delhi [ 2019 (4) TMI 1189 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , which was also a case of misuse of CB license in imports claiming to be the employee of the assessee and submission of KYC documents belatedly, the Tribunal observed, the fact that the appellant produced the required KYC to the Department at the later stage to the licensing issuing authority and not to the investigating agency suggests that the necessary KYC documents were actually not present with the appellant wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the appellant has been seeking adjournments and even today when the matter has been called out, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is of the year 2019. List the appeal on October 16, 2023. We make it clear if the appellant does not appear, the matter may be decided on merits. On the next date of hearing on 16.10.2023, again, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant despite seeking a pass over. We, therefore, took up the appeal for hearing and after perusing the grounds of appeal and the submissions made by of the Authorised Representative for the Revenue, we reserved the order, however, granting opportunity to the appellant to file written submissions within a period of one week. It is more than 2 and 1/2 months but the appellant has not filed any synopsis or written submissions post hearing. Hence we are deciding the appeal on the basis of the available record, the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant and also the submissions made by the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue where he has relied on the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the factual matrix of the case proves that it is the Customs Broker who apart f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been received by him from Shri Mehul Shah through courier. Thus, I observed that the noticee has not verified the antecedent, identity and functioning of his client, ie., M/s Pacific Imports, the said importer at his declared address through reliable and independent means. Thus I hold that the noti ee has prima facie contravened the provisions of Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. I, however, after going through all the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that as per preliminary investigation report, no allegation against violation of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, or any other Act has been alleged against the CB on the basis of investigation conducted so far, and accordingly, the suspension of CB License of the noticee for long time would be a harsh punishment. However, on conclusion of the investigation and on availability of all facts of the case penal action in terms of provisions of CBLR, 2013 may be taken against the said CB. 5. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 15.4.2019 was issued as the appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(d),10(e),10(n) and 13(12) of CBLR, 2018. The appellant submitted his response to the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulation 10(n) of CBLR 2018) as his employee Shashikant Maruti Pol had accepted in his voluntary statement that the bill of entry dated 7.12.2016 had been filed by him without verifying KYC norms and that the import documents had been received by him from Shri Mehul Shah through courier and, therefore, the appellant had not verified the antecedent, identity and functioning of his client, M/s Pacific Imports. Further, the Commissioner left the liberty to proceed on conclusion of the investigation and on availability of all facts of the case, penal action in terms of provisions of CBLR, 2013 be taken against the Customs Broker. It is clear that violation of 11(n) was noted by the Commissioner even at that stage. In that view it cannot be said that on the basis of the inquiry report no further action is maintainable. Under the Regulations, the immediate action required in such like cases is to pass a suspension order to restrain the Customs broker to act any further on the basis of the license. It is thereafter that the Regulation provides for detailed investigation, by holding an enquiry and then proceed further as provided therein. 8. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Mehul Shah in the name of M/s Pacific Imports. The Container No. APHU6448133 was weighed at a weighbridge of Navkar CFS. The importer has declared the gross weight of the subject container as 25900 kgs. However, on weighment it was found 27270 kgs. Thus, there is an excess of 1370 Kgs. as per the weighment slip provided by the CFS. Thereafter, the container was de-stuffed and the goods were segregated according to the marks and numbers on the packages. The total number of packages found were the same as declared packages i.e. 927. During the course of examination, 11 cartons appearing to be Cubic Crystal Zircon were found which were neither declared in the Bill of Entry nor in the Invoice Packing List. The item at Sr. No. 12 of the packing list i.e. 11 cartons of Glass beads were not found during examination. 10. We may now examine the provisions of the Regulations which the appellant has failed to comply. 10(i). Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018, (erstwhile regulation 11(d) of CBLR, 2013) reads as: That Customs Broker shall advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be verified Documents to be obtained 1. Individual (i)Legal name and any other names used (ii)Present and permanent address, in full, complete and correct (i)Passport (ii)Pan Card (iii)Voter s identity card (iv)Driving Licence (v)Bank account statement (vi)Ration card Note: Any two of the documents listed above, which provides client, customer information to the satisfaction of the CHA will suffice. Thus, the appellant was required to inter-alia verify present and permanent address in full, complete and correct, which the appellant did not do. Merely because the appellant obtained documents as per Column 4 of the above table does not tantamount to fulfilment of requirement of Column 3 relating to features to be verified because if that was not so, then there was no need to have Column 3. As seen from Regulation 13(o) quoted above, the Customs House Agent is obliged to inter-alia verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code, identity of the importer and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d functioning of his client at the declared address as per the obligation cast on him under regulation 10(n). Even at the time of revocation of the suspension order, the Commissioner had also observed that there is prima-facie contravention of the provisions of Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. The appellant along with his representation dated 22.02.2017, had supplied copies of documents, KYC, reflecting the identity and antecedents of the importer, procured by the client and some of the documents such as authorisation letter dated 1.11.2016 for appointment of CHA, by the importer, M/s Pacific Imports, IEC copy of the importer, TIN, registration of the importer (State), TIN registration of the importer(Central) and proprietor s PAN was submitted at the time of personal hearing on 1.06.2019. However, as noted by the Commissioner Customs, these documents except the authorisation letter were not procured at the time of filing the bill of entry on 07.12.2016. The issue of submitting the KYC documents belatedly has been dealt in Multi Wings Clearing Forwarding P.Ltd Vs. C.C. (General),New Delhi 2019 (369) ELT 820, which was also a case of misuse of CB license in imports claiming to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. It is difficult for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that no violation of Regulation 11(e) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 is made out. The plea that Sheikh Khursheed disassociated himself from the affairs of the petitioner-company, may make the case of the petitioner worse inasmuch as there is requirement under Clause (5) of Regulation 17 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, that Where the Customs Broker has authorized any person employed by him to sign documents relating to his business on his behalf, he shall file with the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, a written authority in this behalf and give prompt notice in writing if such authorization is modified or withdrawn . It is not the case of the petitioner that after said Sheikh Khursheed severed his relationship with the petitioner-company, it informed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs withdrawing authorization given by it to said Sheikh Khursheed. Clause (9) of Regulation 17 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, casts obligation on the Customs Broker to exercise such supervisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
