9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms broker. Just as the officers responsibility ends doing this part of the job (which may be of issuing the registration without physical verification or allowing the exports without assessing the documents or examining the goods) the customs broker s responsibility ends with fulfilling this responsibility under Regulation 10 of the CBLR, 2018. The dispute in these appeals relates to CBLR (10) (n), which, the Tribunal has discussed, did not require any physical verification of the address of the exporter/importer. The record shows that in this case, M/s Swastik Enterprises and M/s Ganesh Exports produced GSTIN and IEC certificates that were issued to them by the competent authority. The department has not doubted their identities. The depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the customs broker to have personally met the proprietor or any authorized person, despite the fact that the said Regulation specifically requires the Customs Broker to obtain written authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed ? 3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is a contradiction in the impugned judgment and order. On the one hand, the judgment or order admits default on the part of the respondent (customs broker) and maintains the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against him. On the other hand, however, the definite findings of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) regarding breach of the various Sub-clauses of Regulation 10 of Customs Bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring Carrier Pvt. Limited Customs Appeal No.51658 of 2021 dated 18 November 2022. He submitted that M/s Bright Clearing (Supra) interprets the nature of obligations cast upon the customs broker. He submitted that the Principal Commissioner s approach was contrary to the law in M/s Bright Clearing (Supra). Upon applying the correct principles in M/s Bright Clearing (Supra), the CESTAT has concluded that there was no serious breach of the obligations. Still, the CESTAT found a partial failure in complying with the obligations under Regulation 10 (d), which called for maintaining the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed against the respondent. However, the CESTAT concluded that there was no warrant to revoke the respondents licence and forfeit the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relates to CBLR (10) (n), which, the Tribunal has discussed, did not require any physical verification of the address of the exporter/importer. 9. The CESTAT, in this case, has examined the material documents on record and evaluated them. Going by the principles laid down in M/s Bright Clearing (Supra), the circumstance that M/s Swastik Enterprises and M/s Ganesh Export were or were not ultimately found to be nongenuine exporters cannot be the test for holding that the respondent/customs broker had failed in his obligations. Even after compliance with his obligations by a customs broker, the exporters may be eventually found to be non-genuine. In this case, the CESTAT, in paragraph 12.3, has recorded the following finding of fact. 12.3. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs, Precious Cargo Customs Clearance Centre, located at 'G' Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai providing 'First time Export/Import approval in view of Public Notice No.08/2013 dated 17.09.2013'. In respect of M/s Swastik Enterprises the approval was given by letter dated 21.08.2020 and for M/s Ganesh Export the approval has been given vide Note dated 24.05.2018, copies of which has been placed as records in this case. In the said reference, it is stated that based on the reference documents submitted by the appellants in respect of two exporters involved in this case viz. Swastik Enterprises and Ganesh Export, the said office of DC, Customs states that the request has been approved b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any perversity. It is not as if the above findings are based on no material on record. This appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law. In the absence of any perversity in the record of findings of fact, it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the material on record as if it were exercising first appellate powers without any statutory restrictions. The findings of fact recorded by the CESTAT in this case cannot be said to be perverse findings. 12. The CBEC has issued a circular dated 8 April 2010 regarding KYC norms for the identification of clients by CHA. This circular mainly refers to the verification of documents. Nothing on record shows that the respondent did not verify such documents in this case. In fact, the CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
