9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablished. Violation of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The job has been undertaken by Shri Aniruddha Mukherjee, who is an employee of the appellant company. There is no dispute on this. Thus, it is held that it cannot be presumed that the CB had undertaken the job of clearance through any unauthorized person. Accordingly, it is held that there is no violation of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018. Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The CB works as a mere facilitator and files such documents, as provided by the exporter, before the Customs Authority who are supposed to examine the same before completion of assessment. In this case, the exporter, during investigation, admitted the fact of providing export documents by himself. The value of the goods cannot be expected be determined by the CB at any circumstance. Accordingly, it is held that the violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 on the part of the appellant CB is not established. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is observed that the IEC of the exporter is valid and the same was verified by the CB from the DGFT website, which is reliable, indepe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.07.2021. However, at para 6.3 of the said Order in Original dated 26.07.2021, it was observed by the Ld. Additional commissioner that the CB has violated Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d) 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. 2.1. On the basis of the observations made in the said Order in Original dated 26.07.2021, an Offence Report dated 07.09.2021 was forwarded by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SIB, ACC, Kolkata to the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CB Section, Customs House, Kolkata. Vide CB Order No. 13/2021 dated 06.12.2021, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Airport ACC, Kolkata ordered for immediate suspension of CB Licence of the appellant under Regulation 16(1) of CBLR, 2018. The suspension of the CB was confirmed vide Order in Original dated 30.12.2021 and proceedings under Regulation 17(c) of CBLR, 2018 was contemplated. A SCN dated 11.01.2022 was issued to the appellant CB under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 alleging that the appellant CB had violated Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d) 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. After completion of inquiry, the Ld. Inquiry Officer issued Inquiry Report dated 06.04.2022 and held that the appellant CB had violated Regulation 10(a), 10(b), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export documents by the exporter is not in dispute and hence, there cannot be any violation of Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018. 3.3. The Ld. Inquiry Officer held that there was violation of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018 on the part of the appellant as the job was undertaken by Shri Aniruddha Mukherjee who had no valid licence. In this regard, the appellant submits that from the findings of the Ld. Inquiry Officer, it would be evident that Shri Aniruddha Mukherjee was an employee of the appellant CB and at the relevant point of time an application for issuance of appropriate Card in his name was pending before the Ld. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs and hence, it cannot be presumed that the CB had undertaken the job of clearance through any unauthorized person. Hence, there is no violation of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018. 3.4. The Ld. Inquiry Officer held that there was violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 as the CB had no contact with the exporter either directly or indirectly and hence, they were not in a position to advise the exporter to comply with the provision of the Customs Act, 1962. It is submitted that under Regulation 10(d), CB is definitely obligatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority on the basis of the above said findings in the Inquiry Report, is legally not sustainable. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow their appeal. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that a SCN dated 26.06.2019 was issued proposing re-determination of value and confiscation of the goods meant for export, rejection of Drawback claim and imposition of penalty upon the exporter. The Notice also proposed imposition of penalty on the appellant CB under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, on adjudication, the Ld. Additional Commissioner dropped the proposal for imposition of penalty upon the appellant CB, vide Order in Original dated 26.07.2021. The observation of Ld. Additional commissioner in para 6.3 of the Order in Original that the CB has violated Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d) 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, is beyond the scope of the SCN. We observe that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has made these observations against the CB without adducing any evidence to substantiate the allegation and without giving any opportunity to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 on the part of the appellant CB is not established. 7.4. As per Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, the CB is obliged to verify the correctness of IEC, GSTIN, identity and functioning of client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic document, data or information. In the present case, we observe that the IEC of the exporter is valid and the same was verified by the CB from the DGFT website, which is reliable, independent and authentic data and information. Further, in this case, the exporter had duly joined the investigation and admitted his act of export. As such, identity and functioning of the exporter is not in dispute. Hence, we hold that there is no violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 on the part of the appellant CB. 7.5. In view of the above, we find that that the allegation in the impugned order that the CB has violated Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d) 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, is not substantiated with evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order revoking the CB licence of the appellant on the ground of violation of the above said Regulations is not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
