TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heme and an amount of Rs. 1,88,23,316/- was sanctioned to the firm towards duty drawback. Acting on the said intelligence, DRI requested to withhold the duty drawback pending to any to M/s Anand Enterprises. 3. On further investigation, it appeared that the dubious plan hatched by Shri Anand Sharma, (PAN No. FXNPS427E) proprietor of bogus firm M/s Anand Enterprises forged the documents of one Shri Anand Sharma by superimposing his own photograph on Election Card No. TVN1668904 which was issued to real Shri Anand Sharma who was holder of PAN Card No. DLCPS7098Q. Having done so he obtained a bogus PAN card and on the basis thereof, IEC Code was obtained from DGFT, New Delhi and the bank account was opened in Punjab National Band , New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. The real Shri Anand Sharma PAN No. DLCPS7098Q appeared in DRI office and denied having any firm in the name of M/s Anand Enterprises, he also denied that he had ever exported any goods in any firm. During the course of investigation, no firm in the name of M/s Anand Enterprises was found existing on the declared address. It thus appeared that Shri Anand Sharma (PAN No. FXNPS4247E) had created the bogus firm with intention o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argo, 2151/2A, 1st Floor, New Patel Nagar, New Delhi(Customs Broker) and M/s HIM Logistics Pvt Ltd. 2151/3D, New Patel Nagar, ew Delhi (Customs Broker). 6. From the records it appears that M/s Anand Enterprises had not joined investigation, he neither filed any written submission nor attended the personal hearing. 7. After detailed examination of the factual position as well as the statutory provisions, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 12.10.2020 confirmed the demand as proposed in the show cause notice against M/s Anand Enterprises as well as the other two parties, i.e. M/s KVS Cargo and M/s Him Logistics. 8. Being aggrieved, separate appeals were filed by the two appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals), however, both the appeals were rejected and the penalty imposed was confirmed vide order dated 29.09.2022. Hence two separate appeals have been filed by M/s KVS Cargo & M/s Him Logistics Pvt Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before this Tribunal. 9. I have heard learned counsels representing the two appellants, namely, KVS Cargo and also M/s Him Logistics and also the authorised representative for the Revenue. 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts or the identity of Anand Sharma. In this scenario to attribute any responsibility on the CHA to have verified the authenticity of these documents or the identity of the exporter seems to be too much and unpractical. It is absolutely impossible to expect from a CHA to act with such diligence that he could ascertain the veracity of the documents which even the departmental authorities could not ascertain. In the present case, I find that a pre-planned modus operandi which the importer had adopted could not have been detected in the ordinary course. I would like to refer to the observations of the High Court of Delhi in the case of the appellant titled as Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs. KVS Cargo [2019(365) ELT 395] and it is as follows, " Para 3. In this regard the Court notices that both the authorities - the Commissioner as well as well as CESTAT appeared to have imposed almost impossibly high standards upon the CB holder who is expected to not only verify the correctness of the documents with reference to the publicly available material what also carry out independent investigation. No doubt, the CB holder acts as an interface between the Customs Authorities and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the export in question and therefore no liability can be attributed on them under the provisions of CBLR. From the records of the case, I do not find that any allegations of abetment are substantiated as it is not the case of the department that they were aware of the fraud or were beneficiary of the fraud. As pointed out above, the fraud played by Anand Sharma was not even ascertained even by public officials then how is it possible for a non official entity to identity the veracity of the documents. M/s Him Logistics was merely a facilitator in forwarding Anand Sharma to KVS Cargo, hence they cannot be roped in for any violation of the provisions of CBLR and therefore the penalty imposed on M/s Him Logistics by the impugned order is untenable. 17. During the hearing of the appeal, both the appellants have referred to the earlier decisions in their own matters. This Tribunal in Final Order No. 51601-51610/2018 vide order dated 24.04.2018 in the case of M/s Him Logistics Pvt Ltd. and Ors vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev), New Delhi, wherein similar allegations were made that the appellants did not verify the antecedents of the said firm & facilitated imports in the name of bog....