9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in. CESTAT has also noted that on behalf of the importing firms, Sandeep Jain had handed over the export documents and the payments also used to go to the respective accounts as disclosed by Sandeep Jain/IEC holders. CESTAT concluded that all the importers were having requisite documents and they were in existence and appellant had not reaped any benefit out of the arrangement between the importers and Sandeep Jain. The order passed by the CESTAT is based on sound reasoning and due application of principles of law - Appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Appellant Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Adv. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Chinmaya Seth and Mr. A.K. Seth, Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e report dated 04.09.2020 was issued by the Joint Commissioner against the respondent alleging the role played by him in illegal import of Water Treatment Membranes. 5. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2020 was issued to the respondent and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. After enquiry, Order-in-Original dated 21.06.2021, found the respondent in violation of Regulations 10 (d) and 10 (n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 [ CBLR ] and revoked the Customs Broker (CB) License of the respondent. Security deposit of Rs. 75,000/- furnished by the respondent was forfeited and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the respondent. 6. Feeling aggrieved, respondent preferred an appeal before the learned CESTAT. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted that he had not made compliance with the provisions of CBLR, 2018 in relation to his dealings with Sandeep Jain and other associated namesake importers. Relying upon his statement, it has been submitted that CB never made any effort to verify the premises of the importer companies and made all its dealings with Sandeep Jain, who is not even the authorized representative of the importer companies. It is also submitted that the consignments were delivered to the godown of Sandeep Jain and final bills were also raised and delivered at his residence/godown, even though, he was not the authorized representative of the importer companies. It is further argued that Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR imposes an obligation upon the CB to verify the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or under CBLR, 2018 regulations which fixes a responsibility upon CB for ensuring the. attendance of importers and associated people before the investigation authorities. We also observe that the impugned show cause notice in Para 23 thereof records the fact that Shri Sandeep Jain was present and that he even had filed Writ Petition in Hon ble Delhi High Court against the investigating authorities. We observe that these facts are mentioned in the Order-in-Original being reproduced verbatim, but the adjudicating authority has ignored the same. Thus we hold that the absence of the importers and Shri Sandeep Jain has been wrongly observed in the order under challenge and CB has wrongly been held responsible for the said absence. 13. The same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erprises and M/s. Durga Enterprises. He deposed that KYC of four of these firms was done by him. For completing the said procedure, he met four of the IEC holders at his office, verified all original documents i.e. IEC, GST, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, cancelled checks and bank statements. He stated that he met all these IEC holders once in presence of Shri Sandeep Jain at his office itself who was introduced by the importers themselves to be their representative. Shri Sandeep Jain takes care of all the activities with respect of these firms and as far as he knows these firms were in the name of the employees or relatives of Shri Sandeep Jain. 19. We hold that the statement of appellant proves the compliance of obligation 10 (n). We, however, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shine Enterprises, Shri Sandeep Jain has denied any association but it is apparent in the statement of the appellant that all the transactions with respect to M/s. Sunshine Enterprises as well as M/s. Swift Enterprises were being taken core by Shri Sandeep Jain only. The export documents with respect to these two firms also, Shri Sandeep Jain only used to mail to the appellant, in the same way he used to mail it for the other importing firms. The payment also used to go to the respective accounts as were disclosed by Shri Sandeep Jain / the IEC holders. Goods for both these firms also were coming from the same exporters i.e. Mr. Tony Pan and Ms. Samanta of China through their firm M/s. CixiKochin Water Filtration Inc, China. The exports for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
