9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Customs Act prevail over the actions under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 under which the IEC is issued by DGFT and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (or state GST Act) under which the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers. Therefore, the verification of certificates part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker is fully satisfied as long as the Customs Broker satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were, indeed issued by the concerned officers. The onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers had correctly issued the certificate or registration. Of course, if the Customs Broker comes to know that its client 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trade [DGFT] and actually exported goods. DGARM further identified whi ch Customs Brokers had processed the exports of such exporters and conveyed the data to the concerned commissioners. Among the Customs Brokers so identified by the DGARM was the appellant. 6. Based on the information received from DGARM, the Commissioner (Airport General) New Delhi, initially suspended the licence of the appellant on 25.8.2020 and gave a po decisional hearing to the appellant on 7.9.2020 and thereafter, issued Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 7.12.2020 and appointed an inquiry officer. The Inquiry officer submitted his report on 4.3.2021 a copy of which was supplied to the appellant and a personal hearing was held on 13.4.2021. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 15.4.2021. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 7. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: a) The alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) is not supported by facts. b) The report of DGARM alleged that some Customs Brokers including the appellant had handled exports of allegedly risky exporters . c) Based on this letter, the appellant s licence was first suspended and then the suspension was confirmed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orters who, the DGARM suspected to be non-existent but verification was done only in respect of five. The verification reports were enclosed as RUD I, II, III, IV and V to the SCN. 12. The verification reports in respect of all five exporters were reproduced in paragraph 6 of the SCN as follows: (i) M/s RETROVIS FASHION (P) LIMITED (07AAICR6589A1Z5): Remarks of jurisdiction officer: On physical verification, the assesse was found non-existent. Further, letter dated 06.02.2020 written to the assesse to submit Annexure-A as per Circular No. 131/1/2020-GST dated 23.01.2020 but same was returned back undelivered by the postal authorities. 04 Suppliers namely SKM enterprises, M/s Satya Shanti Exporters, M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises and M/s Ganpati Enterprises has been identified as risky supplier by DGARM. Further, it has been observed that details of 04 vehicles claimed to have been used for transportation of inward goods, are not available on the 'Vahan.nic.in website which indicate that these vehicle nos. are either incomplete/incorrect or vogus and have been used merely to generate the e-way bills and the goods claimed to be transported through these vehicles involve assessable v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exporters were non-existent and/or not bonafide. 14. It is not clear if the exporters existed before and had ceased to exist by the time of verification and 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 benami firm in the first place. 15. Thus, 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). 16. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 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 substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf. The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper. 18. The onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers had correctly issued the certificate or registration. Of course, if the Customs Broker comes to know that its client 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 option of verifying using documents, data or information. If there are authentic, independent and reliable documents or data or information to show that the client is functioning at the declared address, this part of the obligation of the Customs Broker is fulfilled. If there are documents 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 believ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
