9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the clearance of the alleged risky consignments. It was noted that the appellant had handled the consignments of 48 risky exporters whose premises could not be verified physically or were untraceable. Based on the reports received, the jurisdictional Commissioner alleged that the appellant had violated the provisions of CBLR, 2018 by not following the KYC guidelines. The CB license was suspended and thereafter, the inquiry as mandated was conducted. The impugned order was passed ordering for revoking the license, forfeiture of deposit and imposition of penalty. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that no relied upon documents such as the DGARM report was shared with the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The counsel further contended that with the introduction of GST, no Shipping Bill can be processed without the valid GSTIN being mentioned on the shipping Bill. As regards IGST 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 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Customs, (Airport and General) [2022-TIOL-603-CESTAT-DEL] 6. While reiterating the findings of the adjudicating authority, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Tribunal in M/s Baraskar Brothers vs Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2009(244) ELT 562] had upheld that "there is no second opinion of the fact that the CHA is a very important component in the whole system of Customs Administration, which has a bearing on Customs revenue collection and national security. The CHAs cannot shy away from the responsibilities and obligations casted upon them by law". In this context, the learner Authorised Representative submitted that the appellant did not take the documents as prescribed in the annexure to the Board"s circular wherein the CB, in case of a company, has to obtain Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Power-of-Attorney granted to 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to fulfil such a responsibility. We find that Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to 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. This obligation essentially involves two step verification viz., the correctness of IEC number and the correctness of GSTIN and in addition, verify the identity and functioning of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. It is noted that IEC and GSTIN 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 its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. The Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer in the State of Jammu and Kashmir who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government. Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf. The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper. 80. The onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers have issued the certificate or registration 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 throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself is independent data to verify the correctness of the identity/address of the client. We also note that there is nothing on record to show that either of these documents were fake or forged. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete as discussed above, the responsibility cast on the appellant under Regulation 10(n) stands fulfilled. In this regard, we note that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mauli Worldwide Logistics vs Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) [2022-TIOL-603-CESTAT-DEL] held as follows: "31. The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete, as discussed in the above paragraph, if the client moves to a new premises 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 imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
