TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was not required to verify and ascertain the address and details of the importers? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the facts on record and mentioned in the order-in-original?" 2. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent assessee Customs House Agent (hereafter referred to as "CHA") was issued a show cause notice on 15.03.2012, which alleged that the export of goods facilitated by it, was dubious and that the concerned parties, upon investigation and inquiry were found to be non-existent. The CHA has replied to the show cause notice and contested the proceedings arguing that it facilitated the consignments in question at the behest of one of it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted by one ex-employee Mr. Sanjay Panwar, who had provided them "export business" as he knew many people in exports business and after knowing about his ill doings, they terminated their association with him and Mr. Sanjay Panwar, no longer worked with them. They have also claimed that the same exporters had exported goods previously without any adverse notice, which was also the reason they did not suspect any foul play. They have only put an argument that they did not get to see or handle the goods for export as CHA and they work merely on the basis of the documents provided to them by the concerned party. They have also argued that in the present case the goods referred for examination were examined by the customs officers and cleared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns honestly. To get additional business, they reportedly shut their eyes on the activities of their employee and also failed to verify the antecedents or their clients. Even the items being exported by the five exporters show the same declared PMV, but they failed to notice the same. This obviously cannot be so without their active and clear complicity in the matter. If in the name of business the CHA overlooks his key legal responsibility and role, he is not only unworthy of a CHA but liable to not only equivalent but stricter punitive liabilities, more so on account of the fact of his being a CHA and licensed in term of CHALR Rules, 2004 under the Customs Act. He has deliberately failed to produce/unravel his co-conspirators and fraudster....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subject matter of "due diligence" expected of such agent unless there are any factors which ought to have alerted it to make further inquiry. There is nothing in the Regulations nor in the Customs Act which can cast such a higher responsibility as are sought to be urged by the Revenue. In other words, in the absence of any indication that the CHA concerned was complicit in the facts of a particular case, it cannot ordinarily be held liable. 8. As far as the decision in H.B. Cargo Services (supra) is concerned, the facts reflected in paras 5 and 9 facially show that the CHA played an active role. It is in these circumstances that in para 15 (which was relied upon by the Revenue), the Court made the following observations : "15. While t....