9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Entry bearing Nos. 8251332 dated 29.09.2018 and 8293759 dated 03.10.2018 for import of 139 MT Black Pepper through the Customs Broker M/s India Transport & Travel Pvt. Ltd. The declared assessable value of the consignments were Rs.3,65,89,320/- (Duty Rs.3,14,11,931/-) and Rs.3,71,19,600/- (Duty Rs.3,18,67,177/-) respectively. A triple duty Bond for Rs. 9,42,35,794/- was executed by the importer under Section 59(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. After due examination of the consignment by the Customs Officer, the value of both the consignments together was collectively assessed at Rs. 7,37,08,920/- attracting duty of Rs.6,32,79,108/-. 2.1. The importer M/s. Arya Spice Food and Trading has intimated the Import Bond Section of Custom House, Kolkata vide letter dated 'Nil' that they have appointed another Custom Broker (CB) namely, M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for the subject two warehouse (Into-Bond) Bills of Entry. The original Customs Broker M/s India Transport & Travel Pvt. Ltd, has also submitted a letter dated 05/11/2018 to the dealing section that they have 'no objection' in the importer changing the Custom Broker in relation to the subject two warehouse (Into-Bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. On the basis of the findings in the Inquiry report and based on the documentary evidences available on record, the Ld. Principal Commissioner has passed this impugned order revoking the license of the appellant and imposed penalty for violation of the provisions of Sections 10(d), 10(m), and 10(n) of the CBLR 2018. Aggrieved against the revocation of the CB License and imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant has made the following submissions against the allegations made in the impugned order: i) The proceeding was initiated on 07.02.2024 in relation to an alleged offence committed in or around November, 2018 after a gap of more than 5 years whereas Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 prescribes that maximum period for issuance of the notice is ninety days. That the purported offence Report 11.02.2023 was received on 12.12.2023 from SIIB (Port) and thereafter the proceeding was initiated on 07.02.2024, violating the timelines prescribed. ii) The process of inquiry as contemplated in the CBLR,2018 has not been followed in as much as no effective opportunity for oral evidence and/or cross examination was accorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Customs Brokers Regulations, 2018. It is also submitted that the Department has not brought in any evidence to the effect that the appellant was actively involved in the alleged diversion of the goods. Accordingly, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing their appeal. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that it is the duty of the Customs Broker to verify the antecedents of the importer before filing the documents for clearance of the goods; that in this case the Customs Broker failed to verify the registered address and antecedents of the importer; the Customs Broker also failed to check the KYC and functioning of the company at the registered address. Accordingly, he submits that the Customs Broker has violated the Regulations 10(d), 10(m) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 and hence the adjudicating authority has rightly revoked the CB licence and imposed penalty for the offences committed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 7. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is the role of the Customs Broker/appellant in the diversion of the Bond to Bond transfer of the impugned goods. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Thus, we observe that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant has wrongly advised the importer and violated the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant has not violated the Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. 8. Regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018 reads as under: - "Regulation 10. Obligations of Customs Broker.- A Customs Broker shall - ...... (m) discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay;" 8.1. In this regard, we find it appropriate to refer to the relevant observations made by the Inquiry Officer in his Report, which are reproduced below as ready reference: - "9.4.1. That, as per statement recorded of Shri Aloke Bose, Director of M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd., on 20.12.2018 and 10.01.2023, the CB, M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd were contacted by Mr. Rupesh Jha and Mr. Anil Jha, of Maxim Clearing and Forwarding, on behalf of the importer, M/s. Arya Spices and Trading Company for the bond-to bond transfer clearance from CWC Kolkata Warehouse to CWC, Kanpur Warehouse of the goods, namely Black Pepper, imported by Arya Spices and Food Trading Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of request of the importer for Bond to Bond transfer of the goods covered under the subject two Warehouse (Into-Bond) Bills of Entry. That the importer was not the actual beneficiary was revealed after a thorough investigation was carried out over a period of 5 years with various statements recorded in the matter starting from 20.12.2018 till 03.02.2023. Further, the goods were transported for bond to bond transfer on 30.11.2018 and investigation was initiated on 17.12.2018. 9.4.7. Therefore, in view of the above, the charges that the CB, M/s. IWW Logistics Pvt. Ltd. appears to have violated the provisions of Regulation10(m) of CBLR, 2018, do not appear to be substantiated in the absence of any corroborative evidence." 8.2. Thus, we observe that the Inquiry Officer, after examining the facts and evidences available on record, has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has not violated the provisions of Regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. The ld. adjudicating authority has not given any reason for rejection of this finding of the I.O. We observe that the appellant has discharged his duties with efficiency and no delay observed. Accordingly, we agree with the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents which have been issued by the various authorities of the Central Government has not been shown to be either fake or forge. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reason for the customs broker to doubt the authenticity of those documents or doubt the reliability of those documents. It is not the case of the department that the documents which were produced by the respondent/customs broker were false and fabricated documents and there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest such an allegation. The Tribunal has, in our view, has rightly held that the obligation of the customs broker under regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continued surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed its operations. After noting the decision in Anax Air Services Pvt. Limited, the learned Tribunal has also considered the facts of the case and noted that the original office report was based on DGARM as in the case of Anax Air Services, and the Tribunal on facts found that the respondent customs broker has verified all the documents such as KYC, GSTIN, AADHAR, PAN, etc. as submitted by the exporter before processing thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
