9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, summons were also issued to the appellant who had largely ignored them and had not cooperated with the investigation. After completing the investigation, an SCN dated 30.5.2022 was issued by the Joint Commissioner, ICD, Tughlakabad, to the exporter and also to the appellant. A copy of this SCN was received by the Commissioner of Customs(Airport & General), New Delhi who had issued the Customs Brokers' license to the appellant. Treating this SCN as an offence report, these proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 CBLR were initiated. The appellant's license was suspended on 4.7.2022, and the suspension was confirmed on 26.7.2022. 4. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 30.08.2022 SCN was issued to the appellant proposing revocation of its license, forfeiture of its security deposit and imposition of penalty for violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(n) and 10(q) of the CBLR. Shri Abhishek Bansal, Deputy Commissioner, was appointed as the enquiry officer in the SCN who submitted his report on 7.11.2022 and he found that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(n) and 10 (q) of CBLR. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had obtained the authorisation from the exporter at the time of shipment. His second submission is that at any rate, the existence of the exporter is not in dispute as is evidenced from the following: i) In paragraph 5 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that the exporter had, by its letter dated 29.11.2021, authorised Shri Sachit Sharma, H-card holder of the appellant for examination. ii) In paragraph 11.1. of the impugned order, it is stated that the exporter had sent a letter dated 28.4.2022 seeking permission to take the goods back to town. iii) The exporter was represented during the panchnama drawn on 30.11.2021 and seizure during 1.12.2021. iv) It is mentioned in the impugned order that one, Shri Saurabh Tanwar represented the exporter on the authorisation of Mrs. Savinder Sharma or M/s. Karamvir Logistics and both Mrs. Savinder Sharma and M/s. Sharp Enterprises (the exporter) were also issued notices by the SCN. 11. Learned authorised representative of the Revenue submitted that the fundamental requirement of Regulation 10(a) is not only to obtain an authorisation but also to produce it to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping Bills thereby aiding in the export fraud. He also asserted that the exporter was non-existent and exports were based on fake documentation. 17. We have considered the submissions. Regulation 10(d) only requires the appellant customs broker to advise his client to follow the Rules and Regulations and in case of any non-compliance report to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had not advised the exporter or that it had knowingly not reported any non-compliance. 18. The submission of the learned authorised representative is that the appellant had filed Shipping Bill in the name of a non-existent exporter and that despite being aware, had not reported the overvaluation of the exports. Insofar as the existence of an exporter is concerned, the Director General of Foreign Trade DGFT issues the Importer Exporter Code (IEC). The presumption is that DGFT has not issued benami IECs to non-existent exporters. If DGFT is issuing benami IECs and the Customs ICES system is allowing export on the basis of such benami IECs to exporters who do not exist at all or exist only on paper, the problem is not of the appellant or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 responsibility does not extend to physically going to the premises of each of the exporters to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. When a Government officer issues a certificate or registration with an address to an exporter, the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for trusting the certificates so issued. 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 toweigh 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 appropria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Government officer to be genuine. It reads as follows: "79. 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." 27. The onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers have correctly issued the certificate or registration. Of course, if the Customs Broker comes to know that its client has obtained these certificates through fraud or misrepresentation, nothing prevents it from bringing such details to the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or importers could be from any part of the country and they hire the services of the Customs Brokers. Besides the fact that no such obligation is in Regulation 10(n), it will be extremely difficult, if not, totally impossible, for the Customs Broker to physically visit the premises of each of its clients for verification. The Regulation, in fact, gives to the Customs Broker the option of verifying using documents, data or information. If there are authentic, independent and reliable documents or data or information to show that the client is functioning at the declared address, this part of the obligation of the Customs Broker is fulfilled. If there are documents issued by the Government Officers which show that the client is functioning at the address, it would be reasonable for the Customs Broker to presume that the officer is not wrong and that the client is indeed, functioning at that address. In the factual matrix of this case, we find that the GSTIN issued by the officers of CBIC itself shows the address of the client and the authenticity of the GSTIN is not in doubt. In fact, the entire verification report is based on the GSTIN. Further, IECs issued by the DGFT also show th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as narrated in the SCN and the impugned order, we have not an iota of doubt that the appellant had not cooperated at all with the investigation. The appellant's submission that it had not received the several summons issued by post and that it had received only one summon delivered by hand to Shri Ajay Dogra but the statement could not be recorded are nothing but lame excuses.
36. We, therefore, find as a matter of fact, that the appellant had not cooperated with the investigation and thereby violated regulation 10(q) of CBLR, 2018.
37. To sum up, we find that the appellant violated Regulations 10(a) and 10(q) but had not violated Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). Applying the doctrine of proportionality, we find that it would meet the ends of justice if the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant is upheld and the revocation of its licence and forfeiture of security deposit are set aside.
38. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit of the appellant are set aside but the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant is upheld.
[ Order pronounced on 05 / 03 / 2025 ] X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
