Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 513 - CESTAT CHENNAIRevocation of the Customs Broker license - forfeiture of the whole of the security deposit - levy of penalty - fraudulent of ineligible IGST refund - drawback and reward by using bogus GST registration issuing bogus GST invoices (where no GST duty has been paid to exchequer) - HELD THAT:- The relevant Regulation of CBLR 2018 has already been reproduced above. As per Regulation 10(d), the Customs Broker is required to advice the client to comply with the provisions of the Act and bring to the notice of the department in case of non-compliance. Regulation 10(e) requires that the Customs Broker has to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information provided by the client to him. Regulation 10(n) casts an obligation on the Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IE Code, GST Registration etc., identify of the client and functioning of client at the declared address by using reliable independent authentic document, data or information. In the present case, it is brought out from evidence that the exporter had a valid IE Code, GST registration, PAN card and bank details. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the Customs Broker had done the KYC verification of the exporter namely J. Tex India by checking the details of GSTIN, IE Code. The department issues GSTIN number only after background checking of the exporter. The address and business details of the person who has applied for the GST registration is verified by the department. When the said registration is still operative as per the website, the Customs Broker cannot be found fault if he has relied upon such data available on the Government website. There is no evidence brought out that there is any overt involvement of the Customs Broker in the fraud committed by the exporter. There is no basis to allege that the appellant has violated the relevant Regulations of CBLR, 2018. The department has failed to establish with cogent evidence that there are grounds for revoking the license of the appellant. The impugned order is therefore set aside - Appeal allowed.
|