9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, the appellant has not violated the Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. Violation of Regulation 10(m) - HELD THAT:- The Inquiry Officer, after examining the facts and evidences available on record, has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has not violated the provisions of Regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. The ld. adjudicating authority has not given any reason for rejection of this finding of the I.O. It is observed that the appellant has discharged his duties with efficiency and no delay observed. Accordingly, the findings of the I.O is agreed upon and it is held that the violation of Regulation 10(m) as alleged in the impugned order is not substantiated. Violation of Regulation 10(n) - HELD THAT:- The importer was in existence at the time of initial filing of the Warehousing (Into-Bond) Bills of Entry and at the time of bond to bond transfer, the importer himself has signed the bond and his signature has also been found to be genuine, as verified by the Bank officials. Documents like IEC, GSTIN and PAN card submitted by the importer were also found to be genuine and the Customs Broker has verified th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing has intimated the Import Bond Section of Custom House, Kolkata vide letter dated 'Nil' that they have appointed another Custom Broker (CB) namely, M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for the subject two warehouse (Into-Bond) Bills of Entry. The original Customs Broker M/s India Transport & Travel Pvt. Ltd, has also submitted a letter dated 05/11/2018 to the dealing section that they have 'no objection' in the importer changing the Custom Broker in relation to the subject two warehouse (Into-Bond) Bills of Entry. The newly appointed CB has submitted a letter dated 22.11.2018 to amend the subject two Bills of Entry in their name to carry out the clearance related work of the said two Bills of Entry. 2.2. The importer, by a letter dated 19.11.2018, applied for Bond to Bond transfer of the goods from CWC, Kolkata to CWC, Panki, Kanpur and being satisfied with the documents including Transit Risk Insurance equivalent to duty amount of Rs.3,18,67,177/- in term of CBEC Circular No.21/2016- Customs dated 31.05.2016 submitted by the importer, the proper officer of Customs accepted the bond and allowed Bond to Bond transfer on 27.11.2018. The goods were loaded in trucks in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears whereas Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 prescribes that maximum period for issuance of the notice is ninety days. That the purported offence Report 11.02.2023 was received on 12.12.2023 from SIIB (Port) and thereafter the proceeding was initiated on 07.02.2024, violating the timelines prescribed. ii) The process of inquiry as contemplated in the CBLR,2018 has not been followed in as much as no effective opportunity for oral evidence and/or cross examination was accorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is on record that the adjudicating authority has given only one opportunity of personal hearing on 10.05.2024. On that date, the C.B.'s Advocate was hospitalised and adjournment had been prayed for. However, without according another hearing, the Ld. adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order clearly in violation of the principle of natural justice. iii) Regarding the transfer of goods under Bond, the appellant submits that they have no role in it at all. The appellant submits that they have neither authenticated any document nor has procured the one time seal which was put on the container at the time of stuffing. Even though the C.B. had been authorised by the importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company at the registered address. Accordingly, he submits that the Customs Broker has violated the Regulations 10(d), 10(m) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 and hence the adjudicating authority has rightly revoked the CB licence and imposed penalty for the offences committed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 7. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is the role of the Customs Broker/appellant in the diversion of the Bond to Bond transfer of the impugned goods. In the impugned order it has been held that the CB has violated the Regulations 10(d), 10(m) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 and hence the adjudicating authority has revoked the CB licence and imposed penalty. Thus, it is required to examine the provisions of Regulations 10(d), 10(m) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 and whether the allegation of violation of the said regulations by the Customs Broker in the impugned order is substantiated or not. 7.1 Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018prescribes as under: - "Regulation 10. Obligations of Customs Broker.- A Customs Broker shall - .... (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady reference: - "9.4.1. That, as per statement recorded of Shri Aloke Bose, Director of M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd., on 20.12.2018 and 10.01.2023, the CB, M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd were contacted by Mr. Rupesh Jha and Mr. Anil Jha, of Maxim Clearing and Forwarding, on behalf of the importer, M/s. Arya Spices and Trading Company for the bond-to bond transfer clearance from CWC Kolkata Warehouse to CWC, Kanpur Warehouse of the goods, namely Black Pepper, imported by Arya Spices and Food Trading Company vide B/E No. 8293759 dated Oct 03, 2018 and 8251332 dated Sept 29, 2018. This has been corroborated by the statements of Shri Rupesh Jha recorded on 20.12.2018, 17.01.2023 and 03.02.2023 that Shri Rupesh Jha and Shri Anil Tha had approached Shri Aloke Bose for Bond to Bond transfer of the said consignment. 9.4.2. As per the records of the case, Shri Aloke Bose, CB, M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd. verified all the original documents relating to the bond to bond transfer of goods including the Insurance for the duty involved as forwarded by Shri Rupesh Jha, acting on behalf of the importer. All documents as required for Bond to Bond transfer including the NOC from earlier CB, M/s. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiated in the absence of any corroborative evidence." 8.2. Thus, we observe that the Inquiry Officer, after examining the facts and evidences available on record, has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has not violated the provisions of Regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. The ld. adjudicating authority has not given any reason for rejection of this finding of the I.O. We observe that the appellant has discharged his duties with efficiency and no delay observed. Accordingly, we agree with the findings of the I.O and hold that the violation of Regulation 10(m) as alleged in the impugned order is not substantiated. 9. Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 states as under: "Regulation 10. Obligations of Customs Broker.- A Customs Broker shall - ..... (n) 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;" 9.1. As per this Regulation, a Customs Broker is expected to verify the correctness or otherwise of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed its operations. After noting the decision in Anax Air Services Pvt. Limited, the learned Tribunal has also considered the facts of the case and noted that the original office report was based on DGARM as in the case of Anax Air Services, and the Tribunal on facts found that the respondent customs broker has verified all the documents such as KYC, GSTIN, AADHAR, PAN, etc. as submitted by the exporter before processing their shipping bills. The decision in Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd. was noted by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S. PRAKASH KUSHWAHA & CO. VS. COMMR. OF CUS (AIRPORT & GENERAL) NEW DELHI; 2023 (384) ELT 89 (Tri.-Del.). From the said decision, we find that all the cases arise out of a common report drawn by DGARM and the appeal filed by the appellant therein was allowed. As could be seen from the language employed in Regulation 10(n), it cannot be read in to the regulation that there is an obligation on the part of the customs broker to ensure the correctness of the action of the Government Department or the documents which have been issued by the various Government D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
