9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exported, the exporter or its customs broker (the appellant in this case) files the shipping bill online on the Indian Customs EDI System (ICES). He also files the supporting documents such as invoice and packing list on the portal (e-sanchit) and files word copies of these documents which will be kept in a docket in the custom house. The scanned copies of the documents filed on e-sanchit help the officers to process the shipping bill quickly without having to refer to the physical copies in the docket. In this case, the Customs Broker (the appellant) allowed the freight forwarder M/s. Toshnek International Freight Forwarder to use its credentials to file the documents instead of filing the documents by itself. The freight forwarder uploaded documents (invoice and packing list) sharing inflated quantities of pan masala when the actual documents filed in the docket shared lower quantities. This, according to the Revenue was done to claim excess IGST refund. Difference in the weight and the amount declared from the weight and amount in the packing list was observed. Following are the details: Bill of Entry No. and date 8126680 dated 23.01.2021 8582895 dated 11.02.2021 8683596 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys transacted the customs clearance work in the customs station either personally or through his G-card holders (two in number). He out rightly denied transacting any business at customs station through Shri Pran Shanker Jha or anybody else who was not the authorized employee of the appellant. It is mentioned that Shri Pran Shanker Jha had not transacted any business from the customs station. Shri Pran Shanker Jha was filing check lists and shipping bills online from the office of the appellant, stationed at IP Extension, New Delhi, hence there can be no violation of Regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018. 5. It is further submitted that the exporter had admitted that the clerical error had occurred in invoice cum packing list by the staff of the exporter namely, Ms. Aakansha Mishra, CHA cannot be held liable for the same. No question arises for violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018. Nothing has been concealed from the customs authority. The difference of weight in two separate packing lists was not to the notice of the appellant or his representatives. Hence violation of Regulation 10(j) of CBLR, 2018 has wrongly been confirmed. The appellant has duly maintained up to date customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being the customs broker for exporter M/s. Batra Enterprise, had filed their three shipping bills dated 23.01.2021, 11.02.2021 and 16.02.2021 for export of consumer goods including pan masala. During examination it was found that weight of pan masala mentioned on invoice cum packing list was much higher than the actual weight thereof found during examination. Resultantly vide Order-in-Original No. 59/2021 dated 26.10.2021, it was held that export of goods has been attempted to avail excess/undue export benefits such as IGST refund, than actually applicable, by way of deliberate misdeclaration/inflation of value of goods. Confirming the willful suppression and the said mis- declaration that the penalty was imposed. The impugned show cause notice dated 19.01.2022 has been issued pursuant to the aforesaid order alleging violation of several provisions of Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018. 8. The sole adjudication in the present appeal is observed as to whether appellant has violated Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d) 10(e), 10(j), 10(k) and 10(q) of CBLR, 2018. For this purpose, we adjudicate regulation wise as follows: 8.1 Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018. It reads as follows: "(a) obtain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea behind Regulation 10(b). Transaction of business in customs station in case of exports is filing of shipping bills along with the invoice, packing list, checklist and all other requisite documents. In today's era of virtual transactions/online processings, physical presence in customs house for transacting the business is not required. However, the intent of the provision remains the same that business has not to be transacted by an unauthorized person i.e. Shri Pran Shanker Jha that too to the notice and knowledge of the appellant. Apparently and admittedly the customs house related transaction of business has been done by an unauthorized person. The same is sufficient to confirm violation of 10(b) of CBLR, 2018. 8.3 Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018. It reads as follows: "(d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be." In the present case, it is on record that the exporter vide his statement has acknowledged that the invoice cum packing list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rima facie appear to be authentic, no reason for the card holder to verify contents of documents. In the matter of Jeena and Company vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore reported as 2021 (378) ELT 528 (Tri.-Bang.), it has been held that "No evidence to show that Agent had knowledge of wrong doing of importer and colluded with importer to defraud Revenue- Not appropriate to punish CHA for filing document in good faith and on basis of documents supplied by importer." 8.4 Regulation 10(e) of CBLR, 2018. It reads as follows : "(e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage". We observe that violation of this regulation has been confirmed based on the fact that two set of invoices were found. One in the records with the appellant and another in the docket file with the customs house. But appellant did not make any effort to find out the reason for issuance of different set of invoices for the same shipment. We observe that the appellant has submitted that shipping bills were filed as per the invoice cum packing list provided by the exporter. The mistake has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed who otherwise is the custodian of the said docket file and not the customs broker as has wrongly been alleged. Neither the G-Card Holder nor the F- Card holder of appellant were aware about having different packing list in the file retained in the office of the appellant than the one as was sent to export shed as docket file. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that up to date records were not being maintained by the appellant. With respect to his cooperation with the customs authority, it is coming apparent that he only ensured the presence of Shri Saurabh Batra, the partner of the exporter, their employee including Ms. Aakansha Mishra and the freight forwarder i.e. Shri Pran Shanker Jha. He got his authorized representatives Shri Prasanta Kumar Samanta, the F-Card holder and Shri Om Prakash Kashyap, the G Card holder examined not once but on several occasions, Hence we find that violation of regulation 10(j), 10(k) and 10(q) has wrongly been confirmed. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we are not in conformity with the findings as far as Regulation 10(d), 10(j), 10(k) and 10(q) of CBLR, 2018 are concerned. The order under challenge is therefore set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
