9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import 'Dry Khat' leaves, a psychotropic substance listed at S.No. 110xof the 'List of Psychotropic Substances' in the Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 through these Bills of Entry, the imported goods were examined and tested and it was, indeed, found to be 'dry khat' and not 'green tea'. The goods were accordingly seized and samples were tested by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory [CRCL] and investigations were carried out which established that imported goods were dry khat and not green tea. 3. Further investigations revealed that the appellant had previously filed four bills of entry in the name of the same importer describing the goods as 'green tea' or 'dried green leaf' which were cleared through the Risk Management System [RMS] of the Customs based on self-assessment, i.e., without assessment or examination by the officers and they were also investigated. 4. To fully comprehend the facts of this case and examine this appeal, it would be necessary to discuss, the standard method of documentation in imports by air. 5. When goods are imported by air, the airline receives the goods from the exporter and issues an Airway Bill which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Bill of Entry, which, has to match the goods actually imported. Since the Airway bill (or Bill of Lading in case of imports by sea) also contains these details, the airway bill has to match with the Bill of Entry. 10. In all these imports, the Airway Bills issued by the airlines clearly indicated 'Dry Khat' as the goods imported while in the Bills of Entry, the goods were described as 'green tea' or 'dried green leaves. 11. If articles of food are imported, a No Objection Certificate [NOC] is required from the Foods Safety Standards Authority of India [FSSAI] for which an online system is available in which also the goods were described in all these Bills of Entry as 'green tea' and NOT as 'dry khat' and the NOC was obtained in these imports. Thus, there was a clear mis-declaration of the nature of the goods in the Bills of Entry as well as in the documentation provided to obtain an NOC from the FSSAI for import. 12. The Joint Commissioner of the Air Cargo Complex Import, New Delhi through which the import was made, and which discovered the mis-declaration of dry khat and its import in violation of the NDPS Act, sent a letter dated 12.2.2019 to the Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had violated Regulation 10(m). This finding is not correct as the appellant had discharged its responsibilities and even obtained a No Objection Certificate from the FSSAI and cleared the goods with utmost efficiency. Therefore, there was no violation of Regulation 10(m); 13.5 In paragraph 21.5 of the impugned order, the Commissioner observed that since the importer was non-existing at the declared address and the appellant had no knowledge about his whereabouts, it was concluded that the appellant had not verified the identity of the clients as well as functioning of the client at that address. Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the identity of the client and its functioning at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The appellant had submitted two documents to prove the identity of the importer and its functioning at the given address. Thus, the appellant had not violated Regulation 10(n). Submissions on behalf of the Revenue 14. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference. He submitted that the appellant, as a Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage; ............... (m) A Custom Broker shall discharge his duties with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay; (n) 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; 16. We now proceed to examine the alleged violations of each of these clauses: Regulation 10(a) 17. It requires the Customs Broker to obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. 18. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that Regulation 10(a) was violated as the appellant had not obtained any authorization for the consignments from the importer M/s. Angel Corporation at all. When the goods were examined in the presence of the G card holder of the appellant, he said that the documents for this imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t all. 23. In this case, the client of the appellant on paper is M/s. Angel Corporation. Not only did the appellant not advise Angel Corporation to comply with the provisions of the Act and allied Acts, but it has not even contacted the client. In fact, it filed the Bill of Entry in the name of M/s. Angel Corporation without even contacting them and thus the import of the psychotropic substance 'dry khat' took place. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(d). Regulation 10(e) 24. This Regulation requires the Customs Broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. 25. The entire facts of the case are not that the appellant had provided wrong or incorrect information to its clients but that it had filed Bills of Entry on the basis of the wrong information provided by a person who was not the importer but some other person. 26. We, therefore, do not find on the facts of this case that the appellant had provided any wrong or incorrect information. Therefore, the appellant did not violate Regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e else and filing the Bill of Entry is to say the least, will have disastrous consequences. This is like an advocate filing a Writ Petition or an appeal in the name of a person without his knowledge by obtaining the documents through someone else. When an agent represents someone, the least that is expected is that he is authorised to represent the principal. Once this obligation is fulfilled, if the principal commits any illegality without the knowledge of the agent, the agent cannot be held responsible. However, in this case, the Angel Corporation in whose name the Bills of Entry were filed had nothing to do with the imports at all. On the other hand, the appellant obtained documents from Tarakeshwar Dubey who is neither the importer on the Bills of Entry nor were any of his KYC documents used to file the Bill of Entry. This resulted in the psychotropic substance being imported through these benami imports. 34. A Customs Broker is expected to behave and operate responsibly and he cannot simply file benami Bills of Entry which, in this case, resulted in import of a psychotropic substance. Filing of Benami Bills of Entry, if condoned, can have severe consequences. Customs procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
