Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1029 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - It is the contention of the appellant that Encanterra Traders existed and was not a fictitious firm - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the decision of the Delhi High Court in MILLENNIUM EXPRESS CARGO PVT. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2017 (6) TMI 1060 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that there is no obligation on the Customs House Agent to look into the information made available by the exporter/exporter. The Customs House Agent is merely a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through Customs House and he is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. When the Importer/Exporter Code Number was provided and before this code was issued a background check of the said importer/exporter is undertaken by the Customs Authority, there should be no doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be too onerous to expect a Customs House Agent to inquire into what is stated in the documents when there is a presumption that an appropriate background check is done by the Customs Authorities. In fact, the grant of Importer/Exporter Code Number is a proof regarding verification of facts and if the grant of such a code number to an entity at the address mentioned is in doubt, then for such erroneous grant of the Importer/Exporter Code Number, the appellant cannot be faulted. The basic requirement of Regulation 10 (n) is that the Customs Broker should verify the identity of the client and functioning of the client at the declared address by using, reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. For this purpose, a detailed guideline on the list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client is contained in the Annexure to the Circular dated April 8, 2010. It has also been mentioned in the aforesaid Circular that any of the two listed documents in the Annexure would suffice. The finding recorded by the Commissioner that the required documents were not submitted is, therefore, factually incorrect - the KYC documents were submitted by the appellant and the verification was undertaken by Anil, an employee who had made the Directors. The communications with the Encanterra Traders was also done through mail. The self attested Pan Card, Aadhar Card of the Director and Pan Card of the Company had been submitted by letter dated September 10, 2018. A physical verification of the premises, as noticed above, was not necessary to be carried out. The Commissioner, therefore, committed an error in holding that the appellant failed to ensure due compliance of the provisions of Regulations 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. The decision of the Tribunal in Multi Wings Clearing & Forwaring P. Ltd. vs. C. C. (General), New Delhi [2019 (4) TMI 1189 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] does not also help the Department as it was found as a fact that the KYC documents were not available with the assessee at the time of visit of the Investigating Agency. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|