Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 1468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the appellant had sublet his licence the Commissioner presumed that the M/s Planet World Cargo acted as the customs broker using the licence sublet by the appellant. He also presumed that Shri Tilak Raj who processed the documents was working for M/s Planet World Cargo. On the contrary, while holding that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n), the Commissioner presumes that the appellant was the customs broker in the matter and in that capacity failed to fulfill certain obligations. At any rate, in the entire investigation, even a summon was not issued to the appellant to record his statement to determine if the shipping bill was filed by the appellant or by M/s Planet World Cargo and if it was filed by the appellant t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ighly over-valued in order to claim higher drawback. This SCN proposed imposition of penalty under section 114AA and section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Act] on the appellant and its G-Card Holder Shri Tilak Raj. Based on the aforesaid offence report, SCN dated 20.05.2021 was issued to the appellant proposing action under CBLR for violation of Regulation 1(4), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n). The Deputy Commissioner was appointed as the Enquiry Officer in the matter as per Regulation 17 (1). After receiving the enquiry report and granting personal hearing through virtual mode, the Commissioner passed the impugned order. 3. The issues which fall for consideration are :- (a) Did the appellant violate Regulations 1(4), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) or n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant s statement was never recorded nor was the appellant ever asked if it had sublet its licence to M/s Planet World Cargo or if the appellant had filed the Shipping Bill itself. There is nothing on record to show that even a summon was issued to the appellant during investigation. It is the case of the appellant that Shri Satender Singh of M/s Planet World Cargo had diverted some of his clients to the appellant and the appellant had processed the export documents using its own credentials. Shri Tilak Raj, according to the appellant, was earlier the G-Card Holder of M/s Planet World Cargo, but after its licence was suspended, he joined as a G-Card holder of the appellant. Thus, according to the appellant it had not sublet its lice .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r held that Shri Tilak Raj and the appellant had not exercised due diligence in ascertaining the correctness of information which they imparted to their client. He also held that the appellant and his employees played a role to accomplish the over valuation of export to the detriment of the revenue. We do not see how any of these allegations would amount to violation of Regulation 10(e). The case of the revenue is that the exporter had overvalued exports in order to avail excessive drawback. It is not the case of the revenue that the customs broker had provided the value to the exporter or provided any other information to the exporter which is incorrect. Therefore, Regulation 10(e) does not apply to this case even if the exporter had overv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and GSTIN were issued by the department, the fault lies at the door step of the officers who issued the IEC and GSTIN and not with the customs broker. We, therefore, find that the appellant had not violated Regulation 10(n). 12. We also find that the finding of the Commissioner that the appellant had sublet his licence to M/s Planet World Cargo and thereby violated Regulation 1(4) is contrary to his finding that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), (e) and (n). While holding that the appellant had sublet his licence the Commissioner presumed that the M/s Planet World Cargo acted as the customs broker using the licence sublet by the appellant. He also presumed that Shri Tilak Raj who processed the documents was working for M/s Plan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates