TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that Bill of Entry covering such import had been presented in the name of importer without actual knowledge of the proprietor of the firm. Based on the above, proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Regulation 10(a), (d), (e) & (n) of CBLR 2018. Suspension order was issued by Mumbai Customs vide Order dated 09/10/2020. Based on the investigation, office report was forwarded to parent Commissionerate i.e. respondent herein. 2. After due process of law, impugned order was issued on 22.06.2021. Adjudication authority ordered revocation of the Customs Broker License, forfeiture of security and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demonstrate that the appellant had failed to advise the importer despite knowing well about the alleged mis-declaration by the importer. With regard to violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, it is submitted that as per Board's Circular No. 9/2010-Cus dated 08.04.2010 there is no requirement to physically verify the existence of the exporter and the Customs Broker is required only to collect the KYC documents mentioned in the said Circular. In the present case, the appellant has collected KYC documents such as PAN Card, GST registration, IEC Certificate, bank certificate and IT returns to satisfy himself regarding functioning of importer at the declared premises. Learned counsel further submitted that he has duly verified the veracity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of provisions of CBLR 2018 are unsustainable. 4. Learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that there is clear lapse on the part of the Customs Broker and by dealing with activities; they have abetted the purpose of smuggling. They have filed documents for clearance of goods without considering misuse of IEC as they knew that person who has given the document for import was not the importer. But they carried the import without ascertaining, as to who is the actual importer. The Customs Broker cannot plead innocence by producing a paper which was obtained from third person, when actual IEC holder has come forward and stated that he has never imported the goods. Such lapse on the part of the Customs Broker made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o verify the address of the importer/exporter by physically visiting the premises as per the document furnished by the importer and such verification can be done by verifying the details at declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. Similarly Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter of Seaswan Shipping and Logistics Vs. CC, Chennai-II reported in 2022 (380) E.L.T. 358 (Tri.- Chennai) considered the issue whether failure of the CHA to obtain KYC from importer directly amount to violation of Regulation 11(a) of the CBLR 2013 and categorically held that in the absence of any finding regarding genuineness of the documents produced by the Customs Broker, proceedings under 10(a) and (n) cannot be taken agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs house area. What is noteworthy is that the IE Code of the exporter M/s. H.M. Impex was mentioned in the shipping bills, this itself reflects that before the grant of said IE Code, the background check of the said importer/exporter had been undertaken by the customs authorities, therefore, there was no doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of the IE Code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there is a presumption that an appropriate background check in this regard i.e. KYC etc. would have been done by the customs authoriti....