Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 724 - CESTAT MUMBAIRevocation of customs broker licence - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - enabled certain persons to avail ineligible drawback and refund of integrated goods and service tax (IGST) in export of goods supported by fake purchase invoices to inflate the claims - involving misuse of importer-exporter code (IEC) of 41 purported exporters - HELD THAT:- It cannot be accepted that customs brokers are obliged to deal directly, and only, with exporters. Implicitly, there is recognition of intermediary as ‘client’ of the customs broker. It also appears that these proceedings have been initiated primarily on account of the entire scheme having been master-minded by one or more beneficial owners taking recourse to documentation made available by exporters on record. There was a time when Customs Act, 1962, in section 2(20), recognised exporters solely as inclusive of any owner or any person holding himself out to be exporter and only in relation to any goods between entry for export and actual export. Inevitably, this always did, and continues to, exclude any transactions which precedes the filing of shipping bills under section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 and restricted to the owner or any person holding himself out to be an exporter. Subsequently, by amendment of 2017, the term encompassed ‘beneficial owners’ too. Consequently, any person can be an exporter and any person may act on behalf of the exporter and, thereby, become a client of customs brokers. What we see here are several loose threads - loose threads that do not curtain off the threshold ingress but, at the same time, these loose threads have been twisted together to form a noose that does not hold - the finding of the licensing authority that obligation under regulation 1(4), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 have been violated by the appellant, cannot be concurred upon. The appellant had obtained, even if not directly, necessary documentation of the exporter on record and there is no evidence that the exporters did not exist at the given addresses. There is also no evidence that the ‘client’ had not been exhorted to abide by the Customs Act, 1962. The suspect transaction occurred before the goods were entered for export and the documents thereto pertain to transactions before the goods were entered for export. There are no merit in the impugned order which is set aside - appeal allowed.
|