TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Broker") handed over a customs docket containing a copy of Annexure C, Check List, export invoice/ Packing list and tax invoice and scrutiny of the same it has been observed that the said shipping bill has been filed by the exporter i.e. M/s. Elegant Exports, IEC No. AAGFE3859H (hereinafter referred as "the exporter"), having situated at Unit No. 204, Plot No. 21, S C Vardhman Crown Mall, Sector 19, Dwarka for export of "Rubber insulated Cable. The buyer of the export shipment under all the Shipping Bill Nos. 9082776, 9082782 and 9082819 all dated 23.11.2018 was M/s. Jain Trading LLC, Office No. 301, AI Jawahar Building PO Box No. 181705, Bur Dubai and consignee was M/s. V A Trading FZE, PO Box No. 16111 Ras AI Khaimah. 2. The goods were examined on 07.12.2018 in presence of two witnesses, Yatin Khanna (H-Card holder of the Customs Broker) and Shri Diva Kant Jha (Authorised representative of the exporter). The quantity of the data cables in the export shipment was found to be as per the declaration made in the Shipping Bill Nos. 9082776, 9082782 and 9082819 all dated 23.11.2018 under MAWB No. 072-6668-2081. However, on physical examination, the declared price of the export goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the customs broker has failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he is required to impart his client and thus they failed to follow the rules and regulation as detailed in CBLR Rules, 2018. And they are also concerned with those goods rendering liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Act ibid. Further the letters and summons issued to the exporter were received undelivered from the postal authorities thus, it appears that the exporter changed correspondence address and CHA failed to bring such developments in the notice of the department. Thus the penalty was proposed on the Customs Broker/ CHA i.e. M/s. On Line Cargo, under section 114 (iii) of the Act ibid. 5. It was also observed that Ms. Bharti Chawla, the CHA was also managing partner in M/s. Johar Enterprises, L-273, Street No. 9, Mahipalpur Extension holder of CB licence No. 18/91 which however stands cancelled vide Order in Original No. 17/2017 dated 5.7.2017 duly confirmed by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 58000/2017 dated 15.11.2017. But it was observed that Ms. Bharti Chawla did not inform while applying licence in the name of M/s. Online Cargo to have conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submitted that in the case of CBLR proceedings, the Regulation 17 of CBLR clearly mandated that SCN has to be issued within 90 days of receipt of the Offence Report and the offence report has to be submitted within 30 days of offence or detection as per Circular No. 09/2010 dated 08.04.2010. Thus action in respect of the affidavit / declaration dated 16.03.2012 is alleged as time barred. The appellant relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Transpeed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi as decided by this Tribunal on 19.06.2019 in Appeal No. C/54037 of 2018 wherein under similar facts this Tribunal restored CB licence of appellant holding the offence report to be time barred. Violation of principles of natural justice are also alleged to have been violated as no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. The appellant also laid emphasis on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Setwin Shipping Agency wherein it has been held that punishment has to be in proportion to the offence and every offence does not automatically call for revocation. It was held that where the license of the appellant had been under revocation / suspension for 2 years, it was suffic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....due diligent, not to conceal an important aspect of partnership with another firm, give proper advise to his client, transact business in a proper manner, inform any change in address etc., not withhold any information and report it to the Customs Authorities etc. which she has failed to abide by, thus the order of the Commissioner Customs is proper and accordingly prays that the appeal be dismissed. 14. Reliance is placed by the department on the following decisions: 1. Universal Agency vs CC (Airport & Admn), Kolkata [2015 (323) ELT 153 (Tri-Kolkata)]; 2. Kunal Travel (Cargo) vs CC & CE [2017 (354) ELT 46 (All.)] 15. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, We observe the allegations against the appellants and respective reasons are as follows: 1 Violations of Regulation 10(d) Advise clients to comply with laws and inform Customs in case of non compliance. That the Customs Broker in her statement said that she verifies quantity and quality of goods of all her clients. 2 Violation of Regulation 10(n) to verify the KYC of the clients using authentic means That the Customs Broker failed to inform Customs of the change in address of the exporter as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Regulation 10(d). However, this verification does not amounts to the knowledge of the CB about the actual price for the goods and that the goods were overvalued by the exporter. There is nothing on record produced by the department to prove that Customs Broker was already aware of the factum of over valuation of goods by the exporter. 18. Simultaneous apparent fact on record is that the exporter never joined investigation inspite of the summons were repeatedly issued to him which was received back undelivered from the postal authorities. The postal report is sufficient to hold that the exporter was no more existing on the address as was provided by the Customs Broker to the authorities . Not only this it amounts to non verification about the correctness of the ICE /GSTIN number also functioning of Customs Broker office at the declared address. There is nothing on record brought by the appellant to show and prove that there were deliberate efforts on her part to comply with Regulation 10(n). It rather is apparent fact that the show cause notice issued, the appellant forwarded her request for personal hearing and to defend her case by email on 02.06.2020. However vide her e-m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances, great confidence is reposed in a Custom House Agent. Any misuse of such position by the Custom House Agent will have far reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Custom House officials. This view was taken by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CCE vs H B Cargo Service. Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of CC vs K M Ganatra reported as [2016 (332) ELT 15 SC] has held that - "The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, as below:- (a) .......... (b) .......... Provided that at any given time such director, partner or an authorised employee shall not engage himself for transacting business under these regulations on behalf of more than one such firm or company " 22. During investigation, department had noticed that Ms Bharti Chawla proprietor of the present appellant vide her statement dated 6.8.2016 with respect to earlier investigation against M/s. Johar Enterprise where the present appellant was Managing Partner. In that case appellant admitted to not verified the KYC of exporter and she stated to be the proprietor in M/s. Online Cargo as well. While obtaining the licence of M/s. online Cargo she tendered her affidavit deposing an oath that she is not holding any CHA licence elsewhere nor she is the partner or director of any other company holding CHA licence. The said affidavit in the light of facts acquired during investigations documents apparently false deposition or oath by the appellant and as such clear violation of Regulation 7(2) of CBLR 2018. Not only this, it amounts to concealment of the records relating to her transaction as Cust....