TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ternational through the appellant declaring the goods as fabric, readymade garments and footwear to claim IGST refund and drawback benefits. The relevant portion of the show cause notice is as follows: "8. From the investigation, it appeared that M/s Krishna International (IEC 05215012911) is a firm that exists only on papers and created in the name of Shri Amit Kumar Gupta. The IEC was obtained and bank account in his name was opened and was operated for fraudulent exports to avail ineligible IGST refund/Drawback/RoSL/MEIS, etc. Hence, it appeared that a syndicate operate these bogus IECs by availing ineligible IGST refund during export on the basis of bogus input GST invoices from their suppliers. It appears that no IGST has been paid to the exchequer in respect of the input CGST/SGST/IGST, involved during procuring these goods from the suppliers by the IEC. The Customs Broker is also involved as they failed to fulfil their obligations under the present regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 which resulted in loss to Government revenue. 12. Therefore, in terms of Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 Shri Kailash Chand, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ausible reply in their defense. During statement, they admitted that they never tried to verify the facts through any correspondences to their registered address given on IEC. The entire business with M/s Krishna International was agreed to do in any third person office. They have never physically verified principal place of business of the exporter. Further, they admitted that they had not formal agreement with M/s Krishna International and they had not received any payment in spite of clearing their 10 consignments. Further, nothing has so far been additionally submitted which was asked during personal hearing. Here, it can be easily inferred from the discussions in the foregoing paras that the Customs Broker (CHA) in their wilful attempt has violated the provisions of the regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018". (emphasis supplied) 5. The appellant submitted a reply dated 20.02.2022 to the inquiry report and the relevant portion is reproduced below: "In regard to the above, the noticee submits that IEC (05215012911) of exporter M/s Krishna International was issued on 10.08.2015 and the address of the exporter mentioned in the said IEC is as PLOT NO. A/1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ietorship concern prescribed under the said circular is as under: S No. Form of organisation Features to be verified Documents to be obtained Col.(1) Col.(2) Col.(3) Col.(4) 1 Individual (i) Legal name and any other names used (ii) Present and Permanent address, in full, complete and correct. (i) Passport (ii) PAN Card (iii) Voter's Identity card (iv) Driving licence (v) Bank account statement (vi) Ration card Note: Any two of the documents listed above, which provides client/customer information to the satisfaction of the CHA will suffice The CB during the Inquiry proceedings has submitted the following documents before the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry proceedings: (i) Copy of PAN Card of the proprietor Sh. Amit Gupta. (ii) Copy of Aadhar Card of the proprietor Sh. Amit Gupta. (iii) Copy of the IEC certificate of the exporter. (iv) Photo of the Amit Gupta, proprietor. (v) Cancelled Bank A/c Cheque of the exporter obtained at KYC time. Hence, it is clear that the CB has obtained only one document prescribed in the above mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....card and the Aadhar Card. Though the Circular refers to the 'voters identity card' but Aadhar Card can also be considered in view of the Circular dated 12.02.2018 that adds Aadhar Card to the list of documents, though in connection with courier companies. The Aadhar Card has not only the address proof but also the identity proof. There is no reason as to why the Aadhar Card cannot also be considered as a document for the purpose of verification. 12. Regarding the allegation that different address was shown in the IEC, the appellant had explained in detail in the reply filed to the notice served with the inquiry report why different addresses were shown in the IEC and the relevant portion of the reply has been reproduced in paragraph 5 of this order. The appellant had specifically stated that the address given in the IEC was subsequently changed as the business of the exporter shifted to a different address. A screen shot of the subsequent IEC was also referred to in the reply but the inquiry officer has not adverted at all to the reply and only a casual statement has been made in the inquiry report that the appellant did not furnish a plausible reply. 13. It has also been ....