TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Commissioner [Impugned order ]. M/s. Perfect Cargo and Logistics [Appellant], is licensed as Customs Broker under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 [CBLR] whose licence was revoked by the impugned order and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on it. The operative part of the impugned order is as follows: "In exercise of powers conferred in terms of Regulation 14 & 18 read with Regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018 (Erstwhile Regulation 18 & 22 read with Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013). (i) I hereby revoke the Customs Broker License No. R-62/DEL/CUS/2017 valid upto 07.11.2027 of M/s Perfect Cargo and Logistics; (ii) I order for forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted his Inquiry Report dated 26.3.2021 based on the following "undisputed facts": i) The Customs Broker has handled various shipping bills of twenty four exporters mentioned in the Table under para 5 of the inquiry report who have claimed IGST refunds. ii) These exporters, as per information received from DGARM, are non-existent. 5. The inquiry officer stated in his report that "he has no hesitation to hold that violation of Regulation 10(n) has been established." He recommended that the Commissioner may revoke the licence of the appellant and impose penalty. 6. The Commissioner then passed the impugned order in which he held 'since such a large number of the exporters are untraceable, it appears that the CB has failed to comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with the SCN to substantiate the allegations in it. No documents were also produced before us by the Revenue to support the allegation in the show cause notice. The irresistible conclusion is that the SCN was issued only based on a communication from DGARM without any documents or evidence whatsoever to substantiate them. Even the letter/communication of DGARM on the basis of which the SCN was issued was also not enclosed with the SCN. It was also not produced before us. Both sides agree that there were no relied upon documents to the SCN. 10. The report of the Inquiry officer is based on two facts- firstly, that the appellant filed Shipping Bills on behalf of the 24 exporters which the appellant is not disputing and secondly, the repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant had not conducted the verification as required under Regulation 10(n). The questions which arise are: a) How did the DGARM come to the conclusion that the exporters did not exist? b) Has any physical verification been conducted? If so, by who? c) What was the report of the officer who conducted the enquiry? d) Did the exporter not exist when the physical verification was conducted or did he not exist on the date exports were made? e) If the exporters did not exist, how were the importer Exporter Code, PAN, GST Registration Number, etc. issued by the various authorities? Did they collude with the exporter to issue these certificates? f) Can the appellant be faulted for trusting the certificates issued by various Government ....