TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I, hereby, order for imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the CB namely M/S MK Saha and company, 145/A, Ashoke Garh, Kolkata 700108 having license number M-57 Code no. 2405 (PAN ABCFM0925F), by exercising powers conferred upon me under regulation 18 of CBI law, 2018 for violation of Regulations 10 (b), 10 (d), 10 (e) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. (ii) The full amount of security deposit furnished by the CB viz., M/S MK Saha and Co., Customs broker license number M-57 code no. 2405 (PAN number ABCFM 0925F) is also ordered to be forfeited as per provision of regulation 14 of CB alert 2018 for violating regulations 10 (b), 10 (d), 10 (e), & 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. 2. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 3 May 2021 was issued by the Principal Commissioner to the impugned order as follows: In the subject order in original No. KOL/CUS/Airport/ADMN/04/2021 dated 3.3.2021, after para 32 (ii), the following para shall be inserted: - "Para 32(iii)- I order for restoration of the license of the CB, M/S MK Saha and company, subject to fresh security deposit and payment of penalty imposed under paragraph 32(i)." 3. In its appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the Customs Broker? 5. The appellant Customs Broker filed four Shipping Bills No.6772616 dated 8.8.2018, 6772734 dated 8.8.2018, 6783913 dated 9.8.2018 and 6783966 dated 9.8.2018 for export of goods by the exporter and the Shipping Bills were assessed provisionally by the proper officer after drawing samples on 10.8.2018 and the containers were allowed to be shipped on 16.8.2018. Thereafter, on 20.8.2018, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] received intelligence and sent a letter to the Commissioner of Customs (Port) Custom House, Kolkata, requesting to issue necessary instructions for 100% examination of the consignments in the presence of DRI. On 21.8.2018, officers of DRI investigated the export consignments of the exporter M/s. Skivvis Textiles which were described in the documents as 'Vegan Leather Shoe Sole Components' declared to be valued at Rs. 6.22 crores. DRI found that the goods were cut pieces of scrap leather of very low value. In other words, the goods which were already provisionally assessed after drawing samples for testing by the proper officer and which were allowed to be shipped were again stopped and examined by the officers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Customs, as the case may be. In the present case, the CB M/s. M K Saha & Co did not advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act. They did not bring to the notice of the department the anomalies. Therefore, they appear to have violated Regulation 10(d). (iii) As per Regulation 10 (e), the Customs broker shall exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. The Customs Broker has not exercised due diligence to impart necessary and correct information. In fact, the exporter was not a client having not engaged the CB. Therefore, they appear to have violated Regulation 10(e) of CBLR, 2018 (iv) As per Regulation 10(n), the Customs broker shall 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. In his statement given under section 108 of the Customs Act, Shri M K Saha submitted that Shri Sumit Saha, Proprietor of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Therefore, the provisional assessment order of the proper officer is still valid. We do not find any provision of the Customs Act under which either a provisional assessment or final assessment can be modified by officers of DRI and a different decision taken. In the case of Jairath International [Punjab-Haryana High Court M/S Jairath International And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 4 October, 2019 CWP No.702 of 2017(O&M)], this legal position was clarified by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In that case, goods were exported on claim for drawback. Thereafter, DRI received intelligence that the exported goods were overvalued to claim ineligible drawback. Accordingly, an SCN was issued proposing to revise the value downwards and recover the excess drawback. Relying on the judgment of the larger bench of the Supreme Court in the case of ITC, [ITC Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 293294 OF 2009] Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that once an assessment of a Shipping Bill is done by the proper officer, the value therein cannot be modified even by a higher officer. Relevant extract of paragraph 15 of the judgment is as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alf of the appellant customs broker and only earned money from them as a business promotion for providing the job to them. 11. Learned Commissioner did not agree with the arguments of the appellant Customs Broker and the statements made during cross-examination and held that the Inquiry officer was correct in concluding that Shri Dey handled the Customs work of the disputed consignment on behalf of the appellant. 12. We have considered the arguments and the evidence before us. We find no reason to doubt the cross-examination and hold that Shri Babul Dey did the export work of the disputed consignment with the Customs because if he was an employee of another Customs Broker, his G-card would say so. In this case, besides the paper work, samples have also been drawn at the time of provisional assessment. If Shri Dey was unauthorisedly representing the exporter in the Shipping Bills filed in the name of the appellant Customs Broker, the Customs officers would not have entertained him. It would not be unreasonable to assume that if the shipping bill is filed by Customs Broker X and the person representing the Custom Broker has a G-Card of Customs Broker Y, officers wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearances of cargo or baggage. In the impugned order, learned Principal Commissioner held that 'on scrutiny of the offence report, documents recovered and statements of Shri Babul Dey, Shri M K Saha and Shri Sumit Saha, it appears that the Government revenue would not have suffered, if the Customs broker had exercised due diligence to exhaustively scrutinize the documents of the exporters, which they failed to do. Thus, prima facie, indicated that the CB has not exercised due diligence to impart necessary and correct information". He further observed "it is apparent that the CB was aware of the poor quality of the goods and also its low value, being their authorised person, Shri Somnath Das visited the godown of M/s. Skivvies textile at Salt Lake..." We find that the learned Principal Commissioner has mis- read the provision of this clause. It only requires the Customs Broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information which he imparts to his client. In this case, the client is the exporter and we do not fi....