9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued IEC by the DGFT. Thus, if the DGARM is correct, DGFT had issued benami IECs. Even taking the reports at their face value, they do not show that the exporters never existed or had not existed at the time exports had taken place. There was no basis to draw such a conclusion, let alone, extrapolate it to conclude that the appellant had not fulfilled its obligations under Regulation 10(n). Any of the three methods can be employed by the Customs Broker to establish the identity of his client. It is not necessary that it has to only collect information or launch an investigation. So long as it can find some documents which are independent, reliable and authentic to establish the identity of his client, this obligation is fulfilled. Documents such as GSTIN, IEC and PAN card issued etc., certainly qualify as such documents as none of these departments have any interest in the relationship between the client and the Customs Broker and these documents are presumed to be authentic and reliable having been issued by the Government officers. However, these are not the only documents the Customs Broker could obtain; documents issued by any other officer of the Government or even private p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be held against the Customs Broker. We, therefore, find that the Customs Broker did not fail in discharging its responsibilities under Regulation 10(n). The impugned order is not correct in concluding that the Customs Broker has violated Regulation 10(n) because the exporters were found to not exist during subsequent verification by the officers. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the Commissioner is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant had not fulfilled its obligations under Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR. In support of this allegation, the only evidence relied upon is the email received from DGARM (RUD 1) and the supposedly three verification reports (RUD 2 and RUD 3). e) Along with the SCN, only RUD 1(email from DGARM) and RUD 2 (verification report in respect of M/s. Vinod Kumar, HUF) have been enclosed. RUD 3 was not enclosed to the SCN and this was pointed out in the reply to SCN. It has not been supplied till date. f) The three exporters in respect of whom the verification was conducted as per the SCN are at S.No. 15,22 and 34 of the list of 53 allegedly suspicious exporters and the appellant had obtained the requisite documents from all three. There is no assertion that any verification was made in respect of any other exporters. g) The exporter listed at S.No. 15 was an HUF and the appellant had obtained PAN Card, KYC Form, IEC, GST Registration and Aadhar card of the Karta for verification as required in Regulation 10(n). h) The exporter listed at S.No. 22 was a proprietorship firm and the appellant had obtained PAN Card, Voter ID, KYC Form, IEC, GST Registration, Aadhar card, ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdictional officer (RUD 3) Non Existent entity. ITC is not admissible. (iii) M/s. Irah Exim Remarks of jurisdictional officer (RUD 3) Non Existent entity. ITC is not admissible. 12. Clearly, none of the three reports say that the exporters did not exist at the time of export. All that they say is that they did not exist when the officer verified. It is not clear as to how the verification was carried out and if the exporters existed before and had ceased to exist by the time of verification, when they ceased to exist. It is also not clear that if the entities never existed, why the jurisdictional officer had issued the GSTIN to such a firm in the first place. 13. The report in respect of M/s. Vinod Kumar says 'Not recommended.' It must be borne in mind that the recommendation of the jurisdictional officer or, for that matter of any authority, is NOT REQUIRED for the exporter to export goods or for the Customs Broker to process exports. 14. The reports in respect of M/s. Raw Overseas and M/s. Irah Exim say "ITC is not admissible". ITC, apparently refers to the input tax credit under the GST. Admissibility or otherwise of the input tax credit under GST has nothing to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificates under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker is fully satisfied so long as the Customs Broker satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were, indeed issued by the concerned officers. This can be done through online verification, comparing with the original documents, etc. and does not require an investigation into the documents by the Customs Broker. The presumption is that a certificate or registration issued by an officer or purported to be issued by an officer is correctly issued. Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872 requires even Courts to presume that every certificate which is purported to be issued by the Government officer to be genuine. It reads as follows: "79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. The Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer in the State of Jammu and Kashmir who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government. Provided that such document is substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s obligation, the Customs broker can also, as an alternative, fulfill this obligation by obtaining data or information. In the factual matrix of this case, we are fully satisfied that the appellant has fulfilled this part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n). 21. The fourth and the last obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents or data or information so long as it is reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. Customs formations are only in a few places while exporters or importers could be from any part of the country and they hire the services of the Customs Brokers. Besides the fact that no such obligation is in Regulation 10(n), it will be extremely difficult, if not, totally impossible, for the Customs Broker to physically visit the premises of each of its clients for verification. The Regulation, in fact, gives the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
