9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Rajesh Bansal or Sunil Badlani. The entire working was within the knowledge of the appellant and the fact that this modus-operandi was followed in the past clearances of around 60-70 consignments clearly reflects connivance on the part of the appellant. Also on same set of facts that Narendra Narula, Proprietor of GND Cargo Movers (CHA) was well aware of the fact that Shri Praveen Singh Patwal was the proprietor of M/s. Royal International and Shri Rajesh Bansal was actually importing the goods in the name of M/s Royal International, although Shri Bansal was not the proprietor of the said firm, show cause notice dated 29.11.2013 was issued under the Customs Act, 1962 and on adjudication, order-in-original dated 30.03.2018 was passed whereby penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed on Shri Narendra Narula under Section 112 (a) of the Act. The findings given on the same facts in the collateral proceedings on adjudication are binding. Customs broker is expected to act with great sense of responsibility and take care of the interest of both the client and the revenue. Violations even without intent are sufficient to take action against the appellant. Proportionality of punishment - HELD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted to under-valuation so as to evade the customs duty. The statement of Shri Sunil Badlani, Authorised Signatory of the importer and also Shri Praveen Singh Patwal, Proprietor was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Praveen Singh Patwal had also sent a letter dated 02.09.2013, the contents thereof revealed that, he was approached by Sh. Rajesh Bansal for allowing him (Rajesh Bansal) to import goods on his (Patwal) IEC and he (Patwal) allowed him (Rajesh) to use his (Patwal's) IEC; that Rajesh Bansal and his brother Manoj Bansal assured him that they would import only 2-3 consignments of 0GL goods from China which will be as per law; that after considering their proposal, he handed over photocopy of IEC of M/s. Royal International to them; that as per their advice current account was opened in HDFC Back, Karol Bagh in the name of M/s. Royal International and he (Patwal) signed on blank account opening from; that he had never signed any cheque or any other document such as authorization, Bill of Entry, import order etc.; that he never authorized any person to act as CHA or to any person to represent him before Customs; that he was shocked when customs off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is-declaration was ever found; that Mr. Rajesh Bansal met him for the first time around March,2013 and informed him that they intend to import mobiles and mobile accessories in the name of M/s. Royal International and he (Narender) informed him (Rajesh) his terms and conditions and asked for KYC norms and about his agency charges of Rs.700/- per B/E and other receipted expenses; that Shri Bansal also introduced him to Shri Patwal as the IEC holder; that, thereafter, whenever the consignments arrived, documents used to be sent by Shri Rajesh Bansal to him for filing before Customs and or else his (Narender) field boy used to go to Shri Rajesh Bansal s office at Tip Top Market, Karol Bagh, to collect the documents; that on some occasions, Shri Sunil Badlani used to come; that he used to get copy of invoice/packing lsit and he/his (Narender) employee used to collect Airway Bills from the Airlines/freight forwarder; that thereafter Bill of Entry used to be filed through his own system in his office through EDI; that Customs Duty used to be paid by them for M/s. Royal International from his account in SBI; that for payment of duty, payments used to be received by them through RTGS from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentity of hisclie nt and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; The aforesaid provision casts an obligation on the Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IEC number, identity of his client and his functioning at the declared address. On investigation, officers of the Customs found that the IEC holder, Shri Praveen Singh Patwal had his office at the given address during the period from 1 April 2010 to May 2012. Therefore, it implies that when the appellant undertook the work of the said IEC holder in March 2013, he was no more operating from that address and as the appellant failed to verify the correct address of the IEC holder at the relevant period, he contravened the provisions of Regulation 11(n). We also find that this was not the solitary incident rather as per the statement of the Customs Broker, he had cleared around 60 to 70 consignments in the past on behalf of the importer and yet failed to verify the functioning of the importer at the declared address. Since the importer firm was found to be non-existent at the given address, the appellant is guilty of violating the obligation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the actual importer or exporter is not having his own IEC, he could be able to circumvent the obligation imposed under Customs Act or under any other law, for the time being in force. 10. We are of the considered view that the appellant being a Customs Broker was required to verify the antecedent of the importer, who in the present case was only a dummy head of the company and all the affairs were being handled by Rajesh Bansal, which he failed to do so. In M/s Swastik Cargo Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2023 (2) TMI 677 CESATA NEW DELHI, where practically the entire transaction of export was controlled and managed by the proprietor of the freight forwarder, we held that it virtually amounts to subletting the license and therefore, the revocation of the license and the forfeiture of security deposit was justified. 11. Also on same set of facts that Narendra Narula, Proprietor of GND Cargo Movers (CHA) was well aware of the fact that Shri Praveen Singh Patwal was the proprietor of M/s. Royal International and Shri Rajesh Bansal was actually importing the goods in the name of M/s Royal International, although Shri Bansal was not the proprietor of the said firm, show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedures, including the offences under the Customs Act to act as a Custom House Agent would show that, while acting as Custom House Agent, he should not be a cause for violation of those provisions. A CHA cannot be permitted to misuse his position as a CHA by taking advantage of the access to the department. The grant of licence to a person to act as Custom House Agent is to some extent to assist the department with the various procedures such as scrutinising the various documents to be presented in the course of transaction of business for entry and exit of conveyance or the import or export of the goods. In such circumstances, great confidence is reposed in a Custom House Agent. Any misuse of such position by the Custom House Agent will have far reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Custom House officials. 14. In Falcon India (Customs Broker) Versus Commissioner of Customs (Airport General), New Delhi 2022 (3) TMI 1268 CESTAT New Delhi, the Tribunal once again observed that the custom broker is a very important person in the transactions on the Customs house and is appointed as an accredited broker as per the Regulations and is expected to discharge all its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judicial pronouncements, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Authorised Representative submitted that Shri Narula ( CB ) in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act accepted that he has not verified the antecedents of the importer as the documents were handed over by Shri Badlani, an Associate of Shri Rajesh Bansal, who is not the IEC holder and he also admitted that the imports were made through a dummy IEC holder. He also submitted that the importer was using the IEC of another importer and CHA knowingly did not verify the antecedents and correctness in terms of Regulation 11(n). He also referred to the decision of Shri Surjeet Singh Chabra Vs. Union of India - 1996 (10) TMI 106 SC to submit that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act are admissible before a Court of Law and in view of the admissions made in these statements, he referred to the settled principles that what is admitted need not be proved. We therefore, do not find any infirmity or perversity in the conclusion arrived at in imposing the punishment by the impugned order. 17. We, therefore uphold the impugned order and dismiss the present appeal. 18. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. [Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
