9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mis-declaration of export goods or about the delay in transportation of such export goods. Thus, we are of the considered view that the violation of Regulation 10(d) ibid, as concluded in the impugned order is not sustainable. Violation of Regulation 10(n) ibid - allegation is that appellants had never met the exporter/IEC holder, and they were not careful and diligent in undertaking the KYC verification process about the background of exporter - HELD THAT:- It is found from the records, that the appellants CB had initially obtained the KYC documents from the exporter and once they were not handling the export consignment, they had sent it to other CB or persons concerned with such export at Pune. Thus, the appellants CB has no role to play in respect of export documents handled by one another CB at Pune. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi has held in the case of KUNAL TRAVELS (CARGO) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT GENERAL) NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI [ 2017 (3) TMI 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURT ], that the appellants CB is not an officer of Customs who would have an expertise to identify mis-declaration of goods. Thus, when the appellants CB was not handling the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is being attempted to be exported in one export consignment. 2.2 Further investigation conducted by SIIB-X revealed that Red Sanders, a prohibited item for export were smuggled in the guise of export of some other goods, viz., Craft Paper (Packing) in Container No. PMLU- 9008054 from JNCH, Nhava Sheva Port to Jebel Ali Port, UAE against Shipping Bill (S/B) No. 8692568 dated 29.11.2013 filed by an exporter M/s. Kinjal Enterprises, Pune through the Customs Broker M/s. Exim Management Services (CHA.PNR - 54), Kothrud, Pune. Therefore, SIIB(X) conducted physical examination of the said container under Panchnama proceedings, which revealed that said container was fully loaded with Red Sanders wood of net weight of 24.770 MTs estimated to be valuedat Rs. 2,47,70,000/-. Further, investigation conducted by SIIB(X), thereafter, revealed that the said container was procured from M/s Perma Shipping Line (India) Pvt. Limited, Mumbai who handled it over to M/s. Skanda Navia Logistics Pvt. Ltd., a container forwarder, who in turn handed over it further to appellants CB. However, the S/B No. 8692568 dated 29.11.2013 for the impugned export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962, in respect of export shipment filed under S/B No. 8692568 dated 29.11.2013, the departmental authorities had initiated separate proceedings by issue of Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 07.05.2014, which was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, JNCH in order dated 04.11.2015, by confiscating the prohibited red sanders goods attempted for illegal export. However, he refrained in imposing penalties on the exporter and other conoticees including the appellants CB, on the ground that the on-going investigation on the role of various persons has not been completed, reserving the department s right to take action on the basis of further investigation. 2.5 On the basis of an adjudication order/offence report dated 04.11.2015 received from customs investigation authorities, the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I had concluded that there is a prima facie case against the appellants for having contravened Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, they had initiated show cause proceedings by issue of notice No.19/2023-24 dated 08.06.2023 for initiating inquiry proceedings under Regulation 17 ibid, against violations of CBLR as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation 10(d) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. 3.2 Learned Advocate also stated that the appellants made sincere efforts to verify the credentials of the exporter and denies the allegation that they failed to follow the mandated Regulation 10 (n) ibid as they obtained certified copies of essential documents, including the Importer Exporter Code (IEC), PAN Card, Aadhar Card, VAT Registration Certificate, Bank Verification Letter, Notarized copy of Warehouse Rent Agreement, AD code Registration document, though not obliged under the Regulation. The physical verification of credentials is not explicitly mandated under the Regulations and they fulfilled their obligations by relying on the documents provided by the exporter. Thus he claimed that the appellants did not contravene these Regulations ibid. 3.3 Further, learned Advocate stated that the appellants CB was not aware of any illicit activities perpetrated by the exporter and could not have reasonably detected any fraudulent intent on the part of the exporter. They were not privy to the exporter's actions and had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing, as they were not directly involved in the operational aspects of the export proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; (n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC)number, Good 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; 6.2. We find that the Principal Commissioner of Customs had come to the conclusion that the appellants CB had violated the above stated subregulations (d) and (n) of Regulation 10 ibid as they had initially received the export documents through their erstwhile Business Development Manager, Shri Gopinath Patil before transferring it to the Pune based CB, and they failed to inform the customs authorities about the inordinate delay of the export consignment from Pune to JNCH. Further, he had also observed that the appellants did not produce any evidence that they received the documents directly from the exporter or had met the exporter. Thus, the adjudicating authority had passed the impugned order confirming all the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B M/s Exim Management Services, by filing the same online from their office, as it is evident from the face of the shipping Bill. Thus, there is no possibility for the appellants CB to either know the actual content of the export goods and to bring to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DC) or Assistant Commissioner of Customs (AC) about the mis-declaration of export goods or about the delay in transportation of such export goods. Thus, we are of the considered view that the violation of Regulation 10(d) ibid, as concluded in the impugned order is not sustainable. 9.1 Learned Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) had come to the conclusion that the CB had violated the provision of Regulation 10(n) ibid, on the ground that the appellants had never met the exporter/IEC holder, and they were not careful and diligent in undertaking the KYC verification process about the background of exporter. 9.2 We find from the records, that the appellants CB had initially obtained the KYC documents from the exporter and once they were not handling the export consignment, they had sent it to other CB or persons concerned with such export at Pune. Thus, the appellants CB has no ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
