Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 201 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of Security Deposit - levy of penalty - IGST refund frauds - exporters could not be found at all physically at their registered premises - untraceable exporters - violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has examined the scope of these obligations in the case of M/S Anax Air Services Pvt Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, (Airport and General), New Delhi [2022 (1) TMI 115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - It is found that physical verification of the business premises is not an obligation cast upon the CB, under Rule 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The Tribunal in the above said Order further examined the reliability of these documents issued by various Government agencies and analyzed the scope of the Custom Broker in relying on these documents to fulfill their obligations under CBLR 2018 and held that In view of the customs RMS letting 80% to 95% of the exports without either assessing the documents or examining the records, there is a very high probability of any fraudster successfully exporting the goods (or even empty containers) and claiming the export incentives and profiting from it. It is found that the ratio of the above said order of the Tribunal is squarely applicable in this case. In the present case also, the appellant has collected the documents such as IEC, GSTIN etc. submitted by the exporter before processing their shipping bills. Later if they were not found to be existing in the said addresses, the appellant cannot be held responsible for their non existence at the address specified, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Anax Air Services - the allegation against the appellant in the impugned order that they have violated Regulation 10 (n) is not sustainable. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
|