TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the importer. The impugned order. The impugned order also notices that the appellant had not verified the financial background of the importer. It could not be the responsibility of Custom Broker to actually physically verify the address of the importers or the financial background of the importer - The impugned order holds that the Custom Broker failed to follow due diligence before accepting the custom clearance work of the importers. Failure to follow the Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - requirement on the part of the Custom Broker to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code IEC number, GSTIN, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information - HELD THAT:- The impugned order holds that the appellant failed to verify the registered address as mentioned in KYC form before taking up the job as Custom Broker for clearance of the said import consignment. The appellant has claimed that the KYC documents were verified by them on the strength of the documents supplied by importer namely IEC Code, Adhar Card, Trade Licence, Bank Details, IFSC Code with importer name, Father s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom Authorized Officer of FSSAI to the effect that the imported foods items are safe for consumption. In terms of Paragraph 2.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy, all imported goods shall also be subject to domestic laws, acts, rules, orders, regulations, technical specifications, environmental and safety norms as applicable to domestically procured goods. The import policy makes it mandatory for all edible food products to comply with Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. In absence of such compliance, the goods shall be considered prohibited in nature. In the present case, the importer has concealed the goods and tried to evade the compliance of FSSAI Act, the import of Areca Nut shall be considered prohibitions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with FSS Act,2006 Food Safety and Standards (Food Import) Regulations, 2017. Thus, the importer, M/s Regent Overseas was changed with contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts by affecting the Food safety and public health by trying to sell the non-confirming impugned good into the market. 3.3 In the notice it was alleged that the Summons dated 27.10.2021, 29.10.2021, 01.11.2021, 05.11.2021, 23.11.2021, 26.11.2021 and 01.12.2021 we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter. g) He only verified GST certificate and IEC on GST website and DGFT website respectively. h) He did not receive any payment from the importer for payment of Customs duty. i) He did not check whether Shri Tapas Kumar Biswas was the actual beneficiary of the said consignment. Also, he did not know about the financial background of the importer J) It is usual practice by his CB firm to accept KYC documents of importers as provided by Shri Uttam Roy, for Customs clearance work. k) He did not know that the said consignment was the first import consignment of the importer. 4.3 In the notice it was alleged that the Statement of Shri Uttam Roy, Director in M/s Sarathi Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. (M/s SFPL), was recorded on 29.10.2021 under the provisions of Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, wherein he, inter-alia, stated that: a) His company I.e., M/s SFPL arranges clients for Customs clearance purpose, transporting, pelleting, fumigation of goods. He acts like a middleman between importer/ exporter and CHA. b) He got the work related to the said consignment from Shri Mukesh Shaw of M/s Omm Shipping Logistics (M/s OSL) c) He received an email dated 11.10.2021 fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignment. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the allegation that they had not verified address is incorrect. He pointed out that Shri Shankar Prasad Verma, the Director of the appellant company, had categorically stated that the KYC documents were verified by them. It was argued that both IEC and GST registration certificate and other statutory documents contain the full address of the importer and business address of the importer is same in all documents. Learned Counsel pointed out that the documents collected by them from the importer were in accordance with circular dated 8th April, 2010 issued by CBEC. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the KYC form was duly verified by the bank and the said KYC form contains the address of the importer. It is seen that the GSTIN registration certificate of Shri Tapas Kumar Biswas, produced by the appellant during hearing contains the following Address: Duttapukur AMANTRAYAN MORE, DUTTAPUKUR, DUTTAPUKUR, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal,743248 The IEC of Shri Tapas Kumar Biswas contains the following Address: MANDAL PARA, JOYPAL, KOLKATA,24 PARAGANAS NORTH, WEST BENGAL, 743234 The Adhar Card of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he given case exist or have shifted or are irregular in their dealings in any manner(in relation to the particular transaction of export), can hardly be the subject matter of due diligence expected of such agent unless there are any factors which ought to have alerted it to make further inquiry. There is nothing in the Regulations nor in the Customs Act which can cast such a higher responsibility as are sought to be urged by the Revenue. In other words, in the absence of any indication that the CHA concerned was complicity in the facts of a particular case, it cannot ordinarily be held liable. 6.2 Learned Counsel argued that in light of above it is seen that it cannot be the responsibility of the Custom Broker to actually go and physically verify the address of the importer.It also cannot be the responsibility of custom broker to indulge in investigation as to if the person approaching him is actual importer or otherwise and if this said person is financially capable of importing sustains. The appellant has conducted necessary verification on the website of GST and of DGFT with respect to IEC and GST Registration. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that GSTIN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 which requires the Custom Broker to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code IEC number, GSTIN, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The impugned order holds that the appellant failed to verify the registered address as mentioned in KYC form before taking up the job as Custom Broker for clearance of the said import consignment. The appellant has claimed that the KYC documents were verified by them on the strength of the documents supplied by importer namely IEC Code, Adhar Card, Trade Licence, Bank Details, IFSC Code with importer name, Father s name and full address with photo fixed on KYC form. The impugned order does not accept this defence and still upholds the suspension order relying on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of K. M. Gantra Co. in Civil Appeal No. 2940 of 2008. Wherein following has been observed. The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
