9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved in several cases of commercial fraud in the past. Hence it is clear on record that a group of syndicate with the said bogus IECs has availed ineligible IGST refund on the basis of bogus invoices, wherein fact remains is that no IGST had been paid to the exchequer in respect of such invoices. The bogus IECs' were used to hide the identity of the actual beneficiary of such fraudulent activity and to escape detection of their direct involvement by the Customs authority. As per Rule 12 of Foreign Trade Regulation Rules 1993 any person using someone else's Importer-Exporter Code shall be held liable for violation of this rule and shall accordingly be liable for penalty under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the rule. The Radioactivity Measurement Laboratory, Radiation Safety System Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombayhas confirmed vide Ref. No. RSSD/RKL/2018 dated 17.12.2018 that No detectable radioactivity was found in these concrete bricks as mentioned in the shipping bills descriptions - it is clear that G-card holder has violated the above quoted provisions of CBLR. The G-card hold is none but a customs broker of the CHA/appellant, hence appellant is resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erties wave coated brick faced masonry block made of cement concrete by the exporter M/s. Della Enterprise (IEC No. 0316512052), it was revealed that during the period 09.10.2018 to 12.11.2018, a total of 35 shipping bills (including the 10 shipping bills examined 100% as mentioned above) with FOB amount of Rs.13.71/- crores were filed in JNPT Port only and undue ineligible IGST refund of Rs.1,65,43,926/- in respect of 15 such shipping bills has already been claimed and availed from the exchequer. Further, IGST refund of Rs.3,12,51,710/- in respect of rest of 20 shipping bills has been put on hold by this office vide letter dated 19.11.2018 in accordance with the CGST Rule 96(4) (b). 1.3 Based on the statements recorded specifically of Mr. Sashikant Marut Pal, the G-Card holder of the appellant and various document received and retrieved during investigation that Show Cause Notice No. 22/2021 dated 07.09.2021 was served upon the appellant alleging him to be involved in the noticed act of misdeclaration and overvaluation. The appellant was called upon to explain as to why CB License should not be revoked and part or whole of the security submitted at the time of issue of their Regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is impacted. 3.1 To support his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Buhariwala Logistics Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I G), New Delhi reported as 2016 (331) ELT 633 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Kirti Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), New Delhi reported as 2016 (33) ELT 107 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported as 2017 (354) ELT 447 (Del.) Accordingly, order under challenge in prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. To rebut these submissions learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the discussions and finding given in the impugned order. In addition learned Departmental Representative has made following submissions: (i) Admission of Irregularities: Shri Shashikant Maruti Pol, as the Power of Attorney holder of Customs Broker M/s Vijender Singh, admitted to facilitating customs clearance for exports without verifying the addresses and genuineness of the exporters. This admission indicates a clear disregard for the regulatory requirements and raises questions about the integrity of the customs clearance process. (ii) False Representation of Office Premises: The inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Del.) (vi) Skytrain Services Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Airport General), New Delhi reported as 2019 (369) ELT 1739 (Tri. Delhi) Accordingly, appeal is prayed to be dimissed. 5. Having heard both the sides, perusing the record, following chronology is observed: (i) 25.02.2022: Revocation Order-in-Original No. 07/ZR/Policy/2022 (ii) 01.12.2021: Inquiry Report (iii) 07.09.2021: Show Cause Notice proposing Revocation (iv) 23.07.2021: Suspension confirmed (v) 15.07.2021: License of appellant suspended (vi) 09.10.2020: Offence Report is SCN issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act. 6. Based thereupon and other facts, the issue to be adjudicated is whether appellant has violated provisions of Regulation 10(a), 10(e), 10(n), 10(o) and 13(12) of the CBLR, 2018 for some export clearances attended by its G-Card Holder on behalf of some exporters who were found to be using fake IECs and have claimed huge IGST refund on later occasion. 7. Foremost we peruse the said legal provisions: Regulation 10(a): obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification Number (GSTIN), identity of the client, and functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, and authentic documents. The Customs Broker in this case failed to verify the addresses and genuineness of the exporters, as admitted by Shri Shashikant Pol. (iv) Regulation 10(o): This regulation requires a Customs Broker to inform any change of postal address, telephone number, email, etc., to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs of all Customs Stations. The Customs Broker in this case failed to fulfill this obligation, as indicated by discrepancies regarding the office premises in Mumbai. (v) Regulation 13(12): A Customs Broker is required to exercise necessary supervision to ensure the proper conduct of their employees in the transaction of business and will be held responsible for all acts or omissions of their employees during their employment. However, it was found that Shri Shashikant Maruti Pol, a G-card holder and employee of the CB, was involved in fraudulent exports without proper verification of documents. 9. We have perused the entire record of the appeal and have observed as follows: 9.1 Appellant, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of the exporters are fake and also no business activities were found in the places of business addresses provided in GSTIN. Persons involved exporting these consignments were also found to be involved in several cases of commercial fraud in the past. Hence it is clear on record that a group of syndicate with the said bogus IECs has availed ineligible IGST refund on the basis of bogus invoices, wherein fact remains is that no IGST had been paid to the exchequer in respect of such invoices. The CHA in connivance of other exported the goods on the name of such IEC's and have syphoned the IGST refund amount received into the account of the fictitious exporter, in respect of such exports. The bogus IECs' were used to hide the identity of the actual beneficiary of such fraudulent activity and to escape detection of their direct involvement by the Customs authority. As per Rule 12 of Foreign Trade Regulation Rules 1993 any person using someone else's Importer-Exporter Code shall be held liable for violation of this rule and shall accordingly be liable for penalty under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the rule. 9.4 The Radioactivity Measurement Laboratory, Radiation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
