TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll carry on business as a customs broker relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station unless such person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the regulations. (2) The Board may make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section and, in particular, such regulations may provide for- (a) the authority by which a licence may be granted under this section and the period of validity of such licence; (b) the form of the licence and the fees payable therefor; (c) the qualifications of persons who may apply for a licence and the qualifications of persons to be employed by a licensee to assist him in his work as a customs broker; (d) the manner of conducting the examination; (e) the restrictions and conditions (including the furnishing of security by the licensee) subject to which a licence may be granted; (f) the circumstances in which a licence may be suspended or revoked; and (g) the appeals, if any, against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence, and the period within which such appeal may be fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in any order, instruction or public notice relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Commissioner of Customs, from a client who is entitled to such information; (g) promptly pay over to the Government, when due, sums received for payment of any duty, tax or other debt or obligations owing to the Government and promptly account to his client for funds received for him from the Government or received from him in excess of Governmental or other charges payable in respect of the clearance of cargo or baggage on behalf of the client; (h) not procure or attempt to procure directly or indirectly, information from the Government records or other Government sources of any kind to which access is not granted by the proper officer; (i) not attempt to influence the conduct of any official of the Customs Station in any matter pending before such official or his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation, duress or the offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or other thing of value; (j) not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole or any part of any book, paper or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Jha was operating as a de facto Customs Broker using the appellant's stamps and through him 30 odd consignments per month were being exported in return for a consideration from Shri Jha. The documents in respect of consignment in question were signed by Shri Bidyanand Jha, who is not their employee, but an employee of Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha. However, they have issued a No Objection Certificate based on which Shri Bidyanand Jha got a temporary Port Licence to conduct the operations. 7. Shri Bidyanand Jha was summoned by DRI twice, but he did not appear and give his statement. Investigations revealed that three other consignments in the name of the same exporter with similar declarations were exported on the shipping bills filed by the appellant, but the appellant had no record whatsoever of these exports in their export register. 8. Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha, after several summons appeared before the DRI and gave his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. He said that he was the proprietor of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency, who did not have a Customs Broker Licence and therefore was using the Customs Broker Licence of others. For the previous two and a half years they have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore they are innocent in the entire matter and cannot be held responsible for the export of contraband. They also contested the issue of the order on the ground that the total time taken for the proceedings was in excess of the 270 days as laid down in Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. 13. Learned Authorized Representative for the respondent Revenue submits that the facts of the case speak for themselves. At the time of investigation and even when the statement of the partner of the appellant Shri Somnath Sarkar was recorded by the DRI, they had no documents whatsoever pertaining to the export consignment. In fact, he gave a statement that they will be available with Shri Jha to whom they have sub-let their licence. It is not in dispute that the container which was supposed to have carried sanitary ware had Red Sanders in it. 14. Subsequent enquiry and investigation led the officers to Shri Jha who had documents on the basis of which the shipping bill was prepared. This shows that the entire Customs work in the case was not handled by the appellant, but by Shri Jha of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency. 15. Shri Jha has corroborated the statement of Shri Sarkar that they do not ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave not conducted any enquiry. In fact, the appellant had no knowledge of the particular export in the name of the exporter. Therefore, they have violated the conditions of his licence. 20. In terms of Regulation 17(a), the Customs Broker "shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees during their employment." In this case the appellant did not even have the documents pertaining to the particular export. Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency had the documents and Shri Bidyanand Jha, who the appellant claimed to be the temporary employee was the one, who processed the consignment in the port and through Customs. 21. Ld. Departmental Representative would, therefore, urge that there is no force in the claim of the appellant and the same needs to be rejected. 22. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the appeal records. There is no dispute regarding the legal provisions. The Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, do not permit the appellant to sub-let their licence. They have to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exporter where the shipping bills were filed indicating the appellant as the Customs Broker. The totality of these circumstances would show that the appellant has indeed sublet his licence to Shri Sudhir Kr. Jha of M/s.U.S. Clearing Agency. 25. In terms of Regulation 11(b) of CBLR, 2013, the appellant has to transact business at the Customs station whether directly or through an approved employee. In this case neither appellant had transacted the business directly nor through their employees, but had sublet their licence to another person. Therefore we find that Regulation 11(b) has been violated. Regulation 11(d) requires the appellant to advise the clients to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of noncompliance bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs. In this case the appellant had no information at all about the export of the consignment in the name of the exporter, let alone advising him to follow the provisions of the law. In terms of section 11(n), the appellant was required to verify not only the correctness of the IEC, but also his antecedents, identity, declared address etc. using reliable, in....