TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5330386, 5330392, 5330396 & 5330397 all dated 21.09.2020 respectively) of 'Ball Bearings' filed by M/s. Gupta Vyapaar (IEC CTGPG 6543A) may be highly overvalued to defraud the Exchequer by getting higher input tax credit and export related incentives. Incentives claimed in the above Shipping Bills are as follows:- Total FOB value: Rs.2,93,05,216/- Total IGST refund claimed: Rs.52.77 Lakh Tatal MEIS claimed: Rs.8.79 Lakh. 2.1 On examination it was found that the goods were declared as 'Rolling Element Components/Parts (B.Bearing)' and the value of the goods was declared as USD 3.99 (Rs.290.87) per unit. The approx. weight of each ball bearing (net weight divided by number of units) was found to be approx. 9.71 grams. Supplier of the said goods contained in these Shipping Bills, M/s.Siddhivinayak Enterprises (Legal name-Akhai Das, GSTIN - 19BHAPD8662D1ZG), has been found to be non-existent. 2.2 These consignments of Ball Bearings were examined by an empanelled Chartered Engineer Shri Siya Ram Jha who submitted his report dated 08.10.2020. In his report, he stated that the unit price of each Ball bearing should be Rs.45 per piece. The declared price was Rs.290.87 per piece. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or Bearing 8.20 gms Evergreen Corporaion Address verified. East- west-north south - boundary of the exporter's address is also provided. Evaded all the summons issued by SIB, ACC. 6 4745791 27-08- 2020 72.90 25000 3.95 No Ball or Bearing 8.20 gms 7 4745806 27-08- 2020 72.90 25000 3.95 No Ball or Bearing 8.20 gms 8 4745808 27-08- 2020 72.90 25000 3.95 No Ball Bearing 8.20 gms 9 4011521 23-07- 2020 75.98 26000 3.95 No Ball Bearing 10.50 gms M/s. C.S. Internati onal (Chandr a Kala Sharma) Non-existent 10 4011964 23-07- 2020 75.98 26000 3.95 No Ball Bearing 10.50 gms 11 4012176 23--7- 2020 75.98 26000 3.95 No Ball Bearing 10.50 gms 12 4014247 23-07- 2020 64.22 22000 3.95 No Ball Bearing 10.50 gms 4. Total ITC (Input Tax Credit) claimed by above mentioned exporters in respect of above-mentioned Shipping Bills is Rs.1.57 Crore (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Seven Lakh only) while total drawback claimed is Rs.17.5 Lakh (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifty Thousand only). Also, ITC claim amounting to Rs.2,06,70,3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted was not found at its declared place of business, 348, Jessore Road, Kolkata - 700055, but a display in the form of a printout found on the wall of the premises indicated that the RTP has shifted to 48/1, Jessore Road, Tulsidham Complex, Kolkata-700055. No application for amendment has however been made till date. (iii) Further, Shri Sudhansu Poddar, authorized representative of CB M/s Shaikh &Pandit Agencies Pvt.Ltd., in his statement given before SIB stated that the exporter, Evergreen Corporation, which is Bihar based entity, handles their local operation through Office premises of M/s Bevyesh Trading Private Limited. However, as per the GST verification report, no trace of business activity of M/s. Evergreen Corporation has been found at the declared place of business of M/s Bevyesh Trading Private Limited. Moreover, the GST verification report nowhere mentions the existence/operations of Evergreen Corporation at the declared place. Therefore, it appears that the CB has failed to verify the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irport & ACC) has failed to appreciate that the Appellant as a Customs Broker, was in no way concerned with the declaration of the consignments exported under cover of the impugned 12 Shipping Bills, with regard to the admissibility of export incentives in as much as it has filed the Shipping Bills electronically through ICEGATE based on the invoice and other documents submitted by the exporter in bonafide discharge of its duty in routine course of its business. The mandate of proper declaration under section 50(2) and section 50(3) of the Customs Act 1962 lies with the exporter and the Customs Broker has the limited role to file the Shipping Bills based on the invoice and other documents submitted by the exporter. As per section 50(2) of the Customs Act 1962, the exporter of any goods, while presenting a shipping bill or bill of export, shall make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents. Similarly, as per section 50(3) of the Customs Act 1962, the exporter who presents a shipping bill or bill of export under this section shall ensure the following, namely:- (a) the accuracy and completeness of the information given therein; (b) the authenticity and valid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be a fraudster it is the action of the investigation not of the appellant Customs Broker that requires to be faulted with. (V) THAT the learned Principal Commissioner has erred in failing to appreciate that the allegation that none of the three suppliers to the exporter M/s. Bevyesh Trading are available in the given address is attributable to the appellant in as much as no such obligation under Customs Act, 1962 or CBLR, 2018 has been bestowed upon the CB to verify the antecedents of the suppliers to the exporter. 7. The Ld.Authorized Representative for the Department vehemently supports the impugned order. 8. We have considered the arguments of both sides and have perused the appeal records. 9. The sole point to be decided at this stage is whether there is a justification for continuation of the licence of the Appellant under Regulation 16 of CBLR 2018 given the facts and circumstances of the case pending further investigation and decision on revocation of licence or imposition of penalty under CBLR, 2018. The four grounds have been given in the impugned order for continuing suspension of the licence of the Appellant : Ground No.1. The Appellant failed in fulfilling it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding not verifying the value of the export goods is concerned we find that the Appellant is correct in stating that the CBLR do not require or authorize the Customs Broker to determine the value of the imported or export goods. The power of valuation of the goods under section 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules rests on (a) the exporter/importer itself in the case of self-assessment; and (b) the proper officer who can reassess the Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill so self-assessed by the exporter under section 17. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant had colluded with the exporter to over-value the goods. It is also on record that the goods were cleared by the proper officers who had the duty and the power to determine/re-determine the value of the export goods. It is also not unreasonable to say that 'proper officers' are more competent in the matter of understanding valuation than the Appellant Customs Broker. When the proper officers have themselves allowed the clearance of Shipping Bills, no blame whatsoever can be placed at the door of the Appellant on the ground that it had no idea of the price of the export goods. Of course, if further investigations show that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10(q) is concerned, the allegation in the Show Cause Notice is that as per the statement of Shri Sudhansu Poddar, Authorized Representative of the Customs Broker, one of the employees of the Customs Broker has verified the declared place of business in respect of the three exporters. However, as per the verification report of GST officials, the exporter M/s. C.S. International (Chandrakala Sharma) has been found to be non-existent. This fact implies that the employees of Customs Broker, who was authorized to give voluntary statement, has not given truthful statement, which amounts to an offense under the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand it also establishes that the Customs Broker is not willing to cooperate in the investigation thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 10(q) of CBLR, 2018. The lack of coordination in the various sections of the department for transparent investigation is also writ large in the matter. The department has ignored the submissions of the Appellant dated 28.10.2021 pointing out inter alia that even on net searching made on 27.10.2021 in respect of M/s. C.S. International it has been found that they have submitted their last GST return on 23.10....