Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 946 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA license - imposition of penalty - it was alleged that the appellant was having the knowledge about the imported consignment to be mis-declared with respect to its description and value - section 11E of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The charge against the appellant is that they have not personally verified the existence of the importer and also failed to properly verify IFC Code and the actual person behind this import. Not only that, the appellant has got the two similar consignments in past. The SCN issued to the appellant does not explain as to which of the specific provisions of Section 11E has been violated by the appellant. However, in the SCN it is mentioned that the appellant failed in its duty of customs broker by not advising his client to comply with the provision of the Customs Act and to verify antecedent of importer/exporter and IFC code no., identify his client and there at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic document, data information. It is on record that the appellant has obtained all the records required for the verification of KYC documents of M/s Kamal imports at the time of import of their first consignment and on receipt of KYC documents, the appellant has also conducted verification of the address of the importer from KYC details and which was found to be in existence at their declared premises. As per Regulation 11 of the CBLR, 2013 there is no requirement of physical verification of registered premises of importer. The verification is only required to be done on the basis of documents which was done by the appellant, and is not disputed. An identical issue has also been dealt with by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. [2017 (1) TMI 747 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it is held that the CHA required to verify KYC norm, as per the documents submitted to them only. Thus, the customs house agent/customs broker is required to verify the antecedent of importer and based on the existence of IFC code and documents submitted to the CHA and not the basis of physical verification of the premises of the appellant, IE Code required to be verified from the DGFT site and other related documents such as PAN number, service tax, sale tax registration etc. There is no need for physical verification of the registered premises of the appellant for purpose of verification of KYC norm. Accordingly, the appellant has not failed in its duty casted upon him under the CBLR, 2013 as a customs broker. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|