TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the lending of IEC. Further, the lending of IEC is not an offence under the Customs Act, 1962. Non-verification of antecedents of IEC holders - HELD THAT:- As per Regulation, the Customs Broker is to verify the correctness of IEC number, identity of client and functioning of them at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents data or information. Further physical inspection of the premises of the importer or exporter is not required under the law as well as under the Board s Circular No.9/2010-Cus dt. 08/04/2010. In the present case, the appellant had obtained copies of PAN card, Aadhaar Card, GST registration certificate, IEC certificate from all the three exporters concerned. Time limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- The Inquiry Report is dated 15/07/2019 and if we accept that the said report was submitted on the same date, even then, as per Registration 17(7) of CBLR 2018, the Commissioner is supposed to pass the order within 90 days but the Commissioner in this case has passed the order on 20/09/2019 which is beyond the time limit prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of the CBLR 2018 - the time limit prescribed under CBLR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, the Inquiry Officer sustained the charge of violation of Regulations 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR 2013. thereafter, the Commissioner after considering the submissions of the appellant vide the impugned order revoked the licence of the appellant and forfeited the security and also imposed penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the provisions of the CBLR 2013 / 2018 and without considering the decisions rendered by the Tribunal and High Court. He further submitted that in para 13.1 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the Customs Broker has not directly interacted with the IEC holder, hence is guilty of violating Regulation 11(d) of CBLR 2013. The learned counsel submitted that this finding of the Commissioner that the appellant had not directly interacted with the IEC holder is also factually incorrect. Further he argued that in the statements dt. 25/05/2017, referred in paras 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the impugned order, the G card holder and Power of Attorney ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b. Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. CC (I G), IGI Airport, New Delhi [2017(354) ELT 447 (Del.)] c. APS Freight Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2016(344) ELT 602 (Tri. Del.)] d. HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2016(338) ELT 725 (Tri. Del.)] - this decision has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi as reported in 2017(348) ELT 625 (Del.)] 4.3. He further submitted that the only allegation against the exporter is overvaluation and there is no evidence brought in the impugned order that the appellant had colluded with the exporter in overvaluing the goods. The learned counsel also submitted that the time limit as prescribed in the CBLR 2018 has not been complied with. In the present case, show-cause notice was issued on 16/04/2019 and the Inquiry Report dt. 15/07/2019 has been received by the appellant only on 07/08/2019 and hence the time limit prescribed under Regulation 17(5) of the CBLR 2018 has been violated. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed on 29/10/2019 which is beyond the time limit prescribed as per Regulation 17(7) of the CBLR 2018. The learned counsel submitted that it has been consistently held that the time l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; 11(n) - verify 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 by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; 6.2. Further we find that in the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the appellant has not directly interacted with the IEC holders and is guilty of violation of Regulation 17(d) of CBLR 2013. This finding is factually incorrect because in the statements of Mr. Mohammad Yusuf Siddique, G Card holder and Power of Attorney of the appellant at Mumbai, he has stated in his statement dt. 25/05/2017 that he had interacted with the IEC holders. Further we find that as per the Commissioner, the appellant has not brought to the knowledge of the Department that IEC holders have lent their IECs to other persons. We find that there is no evidence on record brought by the Department to show that the appellant had knowledge regarding the lending of IEC. Further we find that the lending of IEC is not an offence under the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
