TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N are issued by the Government departments. Therefore, any verification would be based on the copies of these documents submitted by the client/exporter, which can be verified independently online in DGFT/GSTN portals. The Department cannot expect the appellant/CB to be responsible to ensure the correctness of the actions of the Government Department which have issued these certificates. Consequently, verification of certificates as part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker stands satisfied as long as it satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were issued by the concerned officers. Under Regulation 10(n) the Customs Broker is required to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents or data or information so long as they are reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. It is found that both the GSTIN as well as the IEC indicates the address of the client. This in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refunds, he contended that the same are automatically credited to the account of the exporter which is registered via AD code with the Department, which also requires extensive documentation. The mere non-traceability of the exporters in itself is no basis to assume that the exports were fraudulent and were not eligible for IGST refund. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence in the Show cause notice, Inquiry report or the impugned order to substantiate that the exports were incorrect or illegal, nor that there any error in the documentation. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 mandates the CB to verify the identity of importer by way of independent documentation. In the present case the appellant cannot be held responsible for the exporters not being traceable as all necessary documents to ascertain the veracity of the exporter had been undertaken none of the documents is found to be false or forged. He contended that mere Non- traceability of an exporter by itself does not lead to any conclusion that the appellant had violated the provisions of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR 2018. He submitted that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o its managers, PAN allotment letter, etc. However, the appellant had obtained only the IEC, Pan card, Aadhaar card, electricity bill, which were not as per the circular guidelines. The appellant had relied on Board s guidelines which were applicable to authorised courier companies, and not for others. He prayed that the appeal may be dismissed and the impugned order upheld. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised representative for the Department. The issue relates to the appellant, who is a Customs Brokers [CB] whose license was revoked by the impugned order under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations [CBLR], 2018 and the security deposits made by him was forfeited. Penalty was also imposed on the ground that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR 2018. 8. The factual matrix is that the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management [DGARM] of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [CBIC] analysed their data and identified risky exporters involved in fraudulent IGST refunds. The verification of the premises was carried out by the jurisdictional GST officers, wherein exporters who were not found available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be responsible to ensure the correctness of the actions of the Government Department which have issued these certificates. Consequently, verification of certificates as part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker stands satisfied as long as it satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were issued by the concerned officers. We note that same view was taken in a similar case by this Tribunal in its decision in M/s Bright Clearing Carrier Pvt Ltd., vs Commissioner of Customs(Airport General) and Star Carriers vs Commissioner of Customs(Airport General) [2022 (11) TMI 935 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held as follows: 7. Of the above, (a) and (b) require verification of the documents which are issued by the Government departments. The IEC number is issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade [DGFT] and the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers under the CBIC or by officers of the Government of India or under the Governments of State or Union territory. The question which arises is whether the Customs broker is required to satisfy itself that these documents or their copies given by the client were, indeed issued by the concerned government officers OR i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration correctly. It has been held by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Kunal Travels [2017 (3) TMI 1494- Delhi High Court] that the CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect of clearance of goods through customs house and in that process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs house area .. It would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of the IE code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there is a presumption that an appropriate background check in this regard i.e., KYC, etc. would have been done by the customs authorities .. (emphasis supplied). Of course, if the Customs Broker comes to know that its client had obtained these certificates through fraud or misrepresentation, nothing prevents it from bringing such details to the notice of Customs officers for their consideration and action as they deem fit. However, the Customs Broker cannot sit in judgment over the certificate or registration issued by a Government officer so long as it is valid. In these cases, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises and does not inform the authorities or does not get his documents amended, such act or omission of the client cannot be held against the Customs Broker. 32. We, therefore, find that the Customs Broker has not failed in discharging his responsibilities under Regulation 10(n). The impugned order is not correct in concluding that the Customs Broker has violated Regulation 10(n) because the exporters were found to not exist during subsequent verification by the officers. 12. We also note that in a recent judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Naman Gupta vs Commissioner of Customs (A G) dated 30.01.2024 in W.P. (C) 15808/2022 held as follows: 20. It is thus evident from the legal position as enunciated in Kunal Travels (supra), Customs Broker is entitled to proceed on the basis that IEC has come to be generated in favour of the exporter after appropriate background check having been conducted by the customs authorities. The further details that may have been captured and form part of IEC Registration of an importer are aspects which have to be verified by the customs authorities themselves. Moreover, it is also not the case of the Department that IEC, GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
