9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s correct, DGFT had issued benami IECs. Neither of the documents were enclosed to the SCN or provided to the appellant, let alone giving the appellant an opportunity to cross examine those who sent them. This is clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers have correctly issued the certificate or registration. Of course, if the Customs Broker comes to know that its client has obtained these certificates through fraud or misrepresentation, nothing prevents it from bringing such details to the notice of Customs officers for their consideration and action as they deem fit. However, the Customs Broker cannot sit in judgment over the certificate or registration issued by a Government officer so long as it is valid. In this case, there is no doubt or evidence that the IEC, the GSTIN and other documents were issued by the officers. So, there is no violation as far as the documents are concerned. Any of the three methods can be employed by the Customs Broker to establish the identity of his client. It is not necessary tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete as discussed, if the client moves to a new premises and does not inform the authorities or does not get his documents amended, such act or omission of the client cannot be held against the Customs Broker. We, therefore, find that the Customs Broker has not failed in discharging his responsibilities under Regulation 10(n). The impugned order is not correct in concluding that despite obtaining and providing authentic documents issued by various Government officers, 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 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 ..... violation of 10(n) is concerned and passed the impugned order. While the appellant was provided a copy of the enquiry report, no note of disagreement of the Commissioner with the inquiry report was given to the appellant. Therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated. b) The alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) is not supported by facts. c) The report of DGARM which was the offence report in this case was not enclosed with the SCN nor otherwise provided to the appellant. d) The alleged non-existent exporter, whose exports the appellant had processed was M/s. Shree Enterprises. The allegation that the appellant had not followed regulation 10(n) is not correct. As per the CBIC's circular no. 9/2010-Cus date 8.4.2010, Customs Brokers had to obtain at least two of the documents listed in the circular to verify the authenticity of the exporter/importer. M/s. Shree Enterprises is a partnership firm and the appellant obtained it's partnership deed and the official documents identifying the partners and their addresses. The appellant had also obtained GSTIN, IEC, Aadhar Card, PAN card, etc. issued by several government authorities. e) While alleging on the one h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly a violation of the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 14. We now proceed to examine the scope of the obligations of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n). It requires the Customs Broker to 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. This obligation can be broken down as follows: a) Verify the correctness of IEC number b) Verify the correctness of GSTIN c) Verify the identity of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information d) Verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information 15. Of the above, (a) and (b) require verification of the documents which are issued by the Government departments. The IEC number is issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade and the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs of the Government of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers have correctly issued the certificate or registration. Of course, if the Customs Broker comes to know that its client has obtained these certificates through fraud or misrepresentation, nothing prevents it from bringing such details to the notice of Customs officers for their consideration and action as they deem fit. However, the Customs Broker cannot sit in judgment over the certificate or registration issued by a Government officer so long as it is valid. In this case, there is no doubt or evidence that the IEC, the GSTIN and other documents were issued by the officers. So, there is no violation as far as the documents are concerned. 17. The third obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the identity of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. In other words, he should know who the client is and the client cannot be some fictitious person. This identity can be established by independent, reliable, authentic: a) documents; b) data; or c) information 18. Any of the three methods can be employed by the Customs Broker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts issued by the Government Officers which show that the client is functioning at the address, it would be reasonable for the Customs Broker to presume that the officer is not wrong and that the client is indeed, functioning at that address. In the factual matrix of this case, we find that the GSTIN issued by the officers of CBIC itself shows the address of the client and the authenticity of the GSTIN is not in doubt. In fact, the entire verification report is based on the GSTIN. Further, IECs issued by the DGFT also show the address. There is nothing on record to show that either of these documents were fake or forged. Therefore, they are authentic and reliable and we have no reason to believe that the officers who issued them were not independent and neither has the Customs Broker any reason to believe that they were not independent. 20. The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete as discussed in the above paragraph, if the client moves to a new pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
