Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 27 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker license - forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - fraudulent exports - exporting goods described as Floor Covering (Braided) of Man Made Fiber under claim of Duty Drawback provisions and Focus Product Scheme - mis-declaration of description and value - existence of mens rea or not - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has clearly elucidated the manner in which the appellant had contravened the provisions of the CBLR, 2018. The fact is noted that investigations have revealed that the appellant was in touch with Shri Kultar Singh and relied on him for the IEC codes. It is also found that the appellant did not independently verify the actual IECs holder of the said six firms i.e. M/s Dwarka Trading Company, M/s Aadarsh Enterprises, M/s Shree Balaji Trading, M/s Shree Durga Fashion, M/s Apex Trading and M/s Kanak Fashion. It is also established that the appellant was well aware that Shri Kultar Singh was exporting the goods through dummy firms. It is thus evident that the appellant had not verified the 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 as required under the CBLR, 2018. The arguments of the learned counsel that the appellant was unaware of the nature of the goods, nor was he aware of the misdeclaration or undervaluation of the export goods, cannot be accepted. The serious contraventions of the CBLR, 2018 stand established. Existence of mens rea - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it has been noted above that the appellant had actively connived with the main player Shri Kultar Singh. It is also on record that it was the appellant who had suggested the description of the goods in the export documents. It is also on record that the appellant charged extra for clearance of the cargo, which was paid in cash without any bill. It is also on record that samples of the goods sought to be exported were shown to the appellant. However, the appellant neither advised his client correctly nor did he inform the appropriate authorities. The facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above are sufficient to establish the mensrea of the appellant. The adjudicating authority has not committed any error in holding that the Custom Broker Firm/appellant have failed in the compliance of the responsibilities cast upon them as per Regulation 10(a), (d), (e) and (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018, and the consequent action for revoking the CB license, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
|