TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018, for violation of Regulations 10 (d) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018". 2.1 The appellant herein is a Customs Broker whose Customs Broker Licence Number is G-67, Code No.2336 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (A & A), Customs House, Kolkata under Regulation 9(1) of the Customs House Agent's Licensing Regulation, 2004 [Now Regulation 7 (2) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018] on 07.06.2012 to transact Customs clearance work. 2.2 The appellant has filed Bill of Entries on behalf of M/s Pihu Gems LLP for undertaking clearance of the goods as indicated in Table A, as follows. Table-A Sl. No. B/E No. B/E date Goods Declared Qty (Kg) Declared Value 01 2309779 06.03.2019 0.400 Rs.6,46,18,046 02 2309437 06.03.2019 0.400 Rs.6,43,66,896 03 2306969 06.03.2019 "Rough Colour Stone (Quartz)" 0.400 Rs.6,47,00,587 04 2307503 06.03.2019 0.400 Rs.6,47,22,161 Total 1.6 25,84,07,690 2.3 The Bill of entries filed by the Appellant on the behalf of the importer were duly assessed in the manner as prescribed and the goods (semi precious stones), and the goods cleared on the payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time of assessment and clearance of the said goods, Revenue was of the view that the value as declared by the importer on the Bill of Entries filed though the appellant was under-declared. Subsequently, the DRI has sought to state that the value was over-declared and the importer was indulging in the Trade based money laundering. ➢ Be that as it may be the order of the Commissioner on the notices issued for the reason that the goods have been over-valued by the importer and for imposition of penalty on the appellant has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, and the order has been stayed. ➢ Appellant has undertaken the same work in respect of the clearance of the same/ similar goods imported by another importer, viz. M/s Discite Pvt. Ltd.. Investigations were undertaken by the DRI against the said importer also and show cause notice alleging trade based money laundering was issued in that case also. Appellant was also made noticee in the said show cause notice issued to M/s Discite Pvt Ltd. This show cause notice has been adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Airport & Air Cargo Complex, Customs House, Kolkata, vide his Order-i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dada Air Services Pvt. Ltd., in effecting the said fraudulent imports and money laundering. iii) The main office of M/s Pihu Gems LLP was found to be non-functional/non-operational. The branch office could not be located at the declared address. None of the two Directors/Pariners of M/s Pihu Gems LLP appeared before DRI against the summons issued to them. iv) Shri Soumen Roy M/s Granada Air Services Pvt. Ltd., in his statement admitted that he has never met any of the Directors/Partners of M/s Pihu Gems LLP and though the verification of KYC is mandatory for CHA, still the KYC was not verified physically. 23.2 In this regard, the CB submitted that:- i) The instant impugned clearing job was the 3rd job, prior to that CB undertook 1st & 2nd import clearance of same item i.e. SEMI PRECIOUS ROUGH STONES of M/s Discite Private Ltd., Before filing the Bill of Entry or processing the import documents, CB duly obtained all the required documents to fulful their obligations under the CBLR, 2018. All those documents were verified from departmental official website by the CB and all the documents were found to be proper and correct. ii) They had obtained KYC and other documents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es bill for clearing job and receives payment through Banking Channel directly from the importer/exporter. In the instant case also, all those documents were verified from departmental official website by the CB and all the documents were found to be proper and correct; that the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 does not mandate that a Customs Broker has to obtain KYC documents from the importer/ exporter directly. It only provides that CB has to comply with obtaining the KYC documents. It is also not the case that CB had played any active role in the importation of alleged mis-declared consignment. Therefore, allegation of contravention of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, is, prima facie, not sustainable. 23.3 In this regard, the Inquiry Officer found that:- i) Shri Soumen Roy, "G" Licence holder of M/s Granada Air Services Pvt. Ltd., the Customs Broker, in his statement given under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, admitted that the CB has never been in contact with the actual importers, never verified the identity of his client and therefore, was not in a position to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act. Further, the IO also found that the CB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018 inasmuch as G-Card holder of Customs Broker was himself actively involved in the fraud and no one from the CB was ever in contact with the exporters to advise them to comply with the provisions of Customs Act. Further, the Customs Broker has failed to verify the identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information, thereby violated the provisions of Regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. 23.5 In view of above, I have no reason to disagree with the Inquiry Report dated 29.01.2022 submitted by the Inquiry Officer and find that the CB has violated provisions of Regulation 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. 24. Further, the CB has cited various case laws and judgements in support of their submissions. In this regard, I find that the cited judgements and case laws are of no help of the CB in as much as the same were pronounced under altogether different facts and circumstances. None of the decisions cited above have dealt with the issue of CB being integral part of the fraud of Trade Based Money Laundering. The case laws cited do not have an overarching, unques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; ...................................................................................................................... (n) verify 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 by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information;" 4.3 In terms of Regulation 10 (n), the appellant was required to undertake the complete KYC of the importer, on behalf of whom he is finding the documents to Customs. Admittedly, the appellant has taken such verification on the basis of the documents in respect of Importer Exporter Code (IEC), GSTIN and verified the same from the Government website. It is not the case that these have been found to be fake. These IEC and GSTIN exist at the address indicated. It has been settled in series of decisions that once the verification has been undertaken on the basis of the Government website, it is enough to comply with the requirement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... card Note : Any two of the documents listed above, which provides client/customer information to the satisfaction of the CHA will suffice 2. Company (i) Name of the company (ii) principal place of business (iii) mailing address of the company (iv) telephone, fax number, email address. (i) Certificate of incorporation (ii) Memorandum of Association (iii) Articles of Association (iv) Power of Attorney granted to its managers, officers or employees to transact business on its behalf. (v) Copy of PAN allotment letter (vi) Copy of telephone bill 3. Partnership firm (i) Legal name (ii) Permanent address, in full, complete and correct. (iii) Name of all partners and their addresses, in full complete and correct. (iv) telephone, fax number, email address of the firm and partners (i) Registration certificate, if registered (ii) Partnership deed (iii) Power of Attorney granted to a partner or an employee of the firm to transact business on its behalf (iv) Any officially valid document identifying the partners and the person holding the Power of Attorney and their addresses. (v) Telephone bill in the name of firm/partners. 4. Trusts, Foundation s (i) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port of the auto parts is an existing concern, duly registered having a deed for partnership and two existing partners. The IEC copy, PAN Card, telephone bill of the firm, Voter ID of the partners, copy of the partnership deed have been seen and verified by the appellant. The allegation that the IEC was obtained by submitting forged documents has no effect on the appellant as they could only verify the correctness of the documents submitted before taking up of the work for any importer. There is no stipulation or legal requirement to physically verify the business premises or residential premises of the importer and also to have a personal meeting with the importer before taking up the work for any importer. 8. We also note that in the present case the contravention alleged against the importer is non-declaration of retail sale price on auto parts imported by them for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for CVD. We find that the bill of entry was filed by the appellant after the goods were detained by the officers of DRI. The said bill of entry was filed on first check basis for verification of the goods before assessment. In such a situation, we find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of the party which it sought to represent. The Tribunal relied upon a previous ruling Setwin Shipping Agency v. CC (General), Mumbai - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 141 (Tribunal-Mumbai), and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interpretation that the respondent was under an obligation to physically verify the particulars, was misplaced. 2. This Court notices that the CESTAT construed the provisions of Regulation 11 and the Board Circular of 8-4-2010 and found that the partnership firm involved in the import of consignment was an existing concern, duly registered under a partnership deed and two existing partners and that its IEC copy, PAN Card, telephone bill of the firm, Voter ID of the partners, copy of the partnership deed have been verified by the respondent." 4.7 In terms of Regulation 10 (d), the appellant was required to investigate, educate his client in respect of Customs Procedure and Law and advise him not to indulge in any fraudulent activities that are harmful in the interest of Customs. 4.8 In the present case, the goods were imported over a considerable period of time on the basis of declared value or after loading the same as per advice of the Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed persons to handle the shipping bills stood proved, and accordingly opined that the articles of charge under Regulations 12, 13(b), 13(d), 20(1)(c) and 13(n) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (for short, "the 2004 Regulations") were established." And in para 14 and 15, Hon'ble Apex Court recorded as follows: "14. Relying on the statutory provisions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to confirm, modify or annul the decision. There can be no cavil over the issue that the Tribunal can dislodge or confirm or modify the order. The vesting of jurisdiction with the Tribunal by the statute is beyond any pale of controversy. The dispute pertains to exercise of such jurisdiction. When a jurisdiction is exercised, it has to be exercised in accordance with law, regard being had to the factual matrix of the case. The Tribunal having been conferred the power to modify the order, restricting the period of revocation would definitely come within the sweep of the said power. The issue would, as stated earlier, be whether the said jurisdiction has been properly exercised in the case at hand. On a perusal of the order p....