TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fails to take note of the alleged non-existent address, it cannot shoot off the blame for a similar lapse, if any, onto the Customs Broker. It is opined that no action as initiated in the present matter, was made out in the first place. The order of the adjudicating authority is certainly without a toehold of legitimacy and therefore, needs to be set aside. The order of revocation of Customs Broker Licence is set aside and the same is restored - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR.RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dr.S.K.Mahapatra Shri Sudipta Ghosh, both Advocates for the Appellant Shri Tariq Sulaiman, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Rajeev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rting firm and Sandip Agarwal, who had introduced himself as a Chartered Accountant of the importer s firm, was in effect the financier of the imports made. Sachin Agarwal had however stated that he had no knowledge about the import of the impugned goods. 5. Accordingly, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the appellant for violation of Regulations 10 (d), 10 (m) and 10 (n) of the CBLR, 2018. 6. After following the due process of law, on the findings of the enquiry officer s report, the present adjudication order has been passed by the ld. Commissioner. For the sake of clarity, Regulations 10 (d), 10 (m) and 10 (n) of the CBLR, 2018, are reproduced below : Regulation- 10 Obligations of a Customs Broker: (d) advise his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the appellant and the importer other than as of Customs Broker. Also the fact that upon 100% examination of the goods, nothing improper was noticed by the department cannot be lost sight of. It is a fact on record that the department did not suspect the seeking of the KYC documents by the appellant, prior to acceptance of the import assignment. There only case being that during the course of the search at the given premises the said firm was found to be non-existent. A copy of the internal communication of the department is scanned hereinbelow, in support of the said observation. 8. Also as pointed out earlier upon initial examination of goods (100%) by the said officers, no concealment or mis-declaration was noticed, nor was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant by the importer. The second internal communication is a copy of the correspondence of the Department to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (Import Shed) vide F.No. VIII(SB)10/Cus.Prev./Gr.III/1535/2022 dated 23.09.2022. These are presented to us to point out, that the Department itself has been in communication with the importer at the address mentioned, to which it alleges to be non-existent. We note that the copy of the second communication cited above, at Sr. 2 of the address endorsement in itself is marked by the department at the following address: M/s. SSB Enterprises (IEC No. FHNPS4416) M- 16 FF, Gali Gosain Shiv Motor Market, North Delhi, Delhi-110006. That is too say that the department was itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the plea of the Department alleging failure on the part of the appellant for meeting out their obligations in fulfillment of the KYC requirements. The inherent contradiction made by the Department is self evident, when the department with all the wherewithal at its command, itself fails to take note of the alleged non-existent address, it cannot shoot off the blame for a similar lapse, if any, onto the Customs Broker. 13. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no action as initiated in the present matter, was made out in the first place. The order of the adjudicating authority is certainly without a toehold of legitimacy and therefore, needs to be set aside. 14. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
