TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing questions of law: 'a) whether the CESTAT was right in ignoring the finding in Order-in-Original whereby it is held that the Respondent has violated provisions of Regulations 10(d), (w) & (m) of Customs Broker License Regulations, 2018? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances CESTAT was right in allowing Respondent's appeal relying on an order dated 25th November, 2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur in the case of M/s. Hiren Transport being a case under investigation report dated 17th January, 2019?' 3. It is on the above background, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties finally on the present Appeal. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and also the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the limited reasons, as set out in the impugned order, we are of the opinion that with all the issues arising in this proceedings including issue of question No.2, as noted by us above, requires reconsideration of the Tribunal. What we note from the order is that the Tribunal ought to have examine all the issues which had fallen for consideration in the Respondent's Appeal, and, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the employees/directors of freight forwarding companies. They had entered into a criminal conspiracy with object to misrepresent before the banks to avail credit facilities. Shri Sanjeev Verma, Director of M/s RSS Shipping P Limited (RSSSPL) were doing CHA work under the authority of M/s Ramesh Transport Co., i.e., the appellants. Thus, the department alleged that appellants have handled exports in respect of RSSSPL and ABCCPL. Whereas the department alleged that appellants knowingly assisted the above ABCCPL and RSSSPL by providing false, fabricated documents as a part of export bills to the banks, separate proceedings under CBLR was initiated by jurisdictional Principal Commissioner on the appellants by immediate suspension of the Customs Broker's (CB) license of the appellants under Regulation 16(1) ibid, vide ex-party Order No.36/2019-20 dated 27.08.2019. After giving a chance for oral and written submission by the appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Customs issued an order No.50/2019-20 dated 04.10.2019 for revocation of suspension of CB license pending inquiry under Regulation 17 ibid. Accordingly, necessary show cause notice dated 28.10.2019 was issued alleging char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....complicity of the appellants in the fraud does not arise and the consequential action taken alleging violations of CBLR does not sustain. In this regard, he relied upon the following case laws: - (a) Delta Infra logistics (Worldwide) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Bangalore - 2019 (11) TMI 621- CESTAT Bangalore (b) Kunal Travels(Cargo) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) - 2017 (3) TMI1494-Delhi High Court (c) Rubal Logistics Pvt, Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) , New Delhi - 2019 (368) E.L.T. 1006 (Del.) 5. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submitted that the appellants had no interaction with the exporter; they have processed the shipping bills without proper verification of exporters by using any reliable means, and never brought non-filing of shipping bills to the knowledge of Customs. Hence, he pleaded that the impugned order is sustainable in law. 6. We have heard both sides and have gone through the records of the case. 7. From the perusal of the records and factual matrix of the case, it is seen that the Department had initiated independent action against the appellants under CBLR,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EGATE' which indicates the status of the shipping bill i.e., whether the concerned SB number or Checklist number is allowed for export or purged in the computer system. Apart from the above, the bank officials and internal auditors are required to verify the status of the shipping bills at random to check the veracity of the SBs tendered along with the export documents.' In this regard, I further find from perusal of para 4.6.7. (page-58) banks negotiated and discounted the export bills on the basis of checklist alone in gross violation of the guidelines as discussed in para 4.10.20, page-161 of the SFIO Report above. 6.6. I also find from the SFIO that as per the guidelines of the RBI, it was incumbent upon Banks to accept only the Shipping Bills (authenticated by the Customs) evidencing physical exports. But it appears from the SFIO report that the banks accepted the checklists and MTDs/Bills of Lading issued by the concerned Freight Forwarders and Shipping Lines without receipt of the cargo in port warehouse/ship, vessel or export. The SFIO report further reveals that Banks did not verify the authenticity of the Shipping Bills despite having access to the customs data of Shipp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Appendix. xx xx xx xx PART - 3 C. Operational Guidelines for AD Category - I banks C.1 Citing of Specific Identification Numbers (i) In all applications / correspondence with the Reserve Bank, the specific identification number as available on the GR, PP and SOFTEX forms should invariably be cited. (ii) In the case of declarations made on SDF form, the port code number and shipping bill number should be cited. C.2 GR/SDF/PP/SOFTEX procedure In terms of Regulation 6 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 notified vide Notification No. FEMA.23/2000-RB dated 3rd May 2000, as amended from time to time export declaration forms should be disposed of as under: C.3 (A) GR forms i. GR forms should be completed by the exporter in duplicate and both the copies submitted to the Customs at the port of shipment along with the shipping bill. ii. Customs will give their running serial number on both the copies after admitting the corresponding shipping bill. The Customs serial number will have ten numerals denoting the code number of the port of shipment, the calendar year and a six- digit running serial number. iii. Customs will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without verification of the shipping bills and GR forms have allowed the credit facilities to the exporter ABCCPL on the basis of check lists, even before the goods are actually exported out of the country. Further, RBI have also provided for a Caution list of exporters who do not repatriate their sale proceeds to be earned from their exports in time through an Export Data Processing and Monitoring System. Thus, irrespective of the appellants not informing the Customs about the non production of export goods, the above independent system of checks and data base would have brought to the fore, the export fraud committed by the exporter ABCCPL. Thus, we are of the considered view that the appellants have not caused any violation or in any way connected with the export fraud committed by the exporter ABCCPL and other connected persons. 9. In order to further examine the specific Regulations which are alleged to have been violated by the appellants, we have examined these individually on the basis of factual matrix of the case as follows. The relevant part of the CBLR, 2018 dealing with the obligations of the Customs Broker is extracted below: "Regulation 10. Obligations of Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entry made relating to exports on the basis of invoice, packing list etc. and after verification of the correctness of the data, the check list is submitted to the Customs for generating Shipping Bill No. and for further processing by Customs. The various steps involved in Customs processing are (i) appraising of shipping bill, (ii) export duty/cess payment, (iii) examination of goods and (iv) giving Let Export Order, (v) Loading of goods into the vessel and (vi) allowing shipment for export, (vii) filing of Export General Manifest and (viii) payment of drawback/export incentives. As the shipping bills for export could be involving export goods from factories, 100% EOU units/EPZs etc., or goods which are stuffed in export containers that are self-sealed or factory stuffed in the presence of departmental officers and depending upon the country to which exporter, export incentives claimed, different levels of examination norms have been presrcibed by CBIC. In case any of the shipping bill for which export goods is not presented for examination within 15 days from the date of its filing, then such shipping bills are purged from the Customs EDI System. From the above facts and customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o find that our above views are also concurred in the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Kunal Travels (Cargo), supra. The relevant portion of the above order is extracted below: "12. Clause (e) of the aforesaid Regulation requires exercise of due diligence by the CHA regarding such information which he may give to his client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo. Clause (l) requires that all documents submitted, such as bills of entry and shipping bills delivered etc. reflect the name of the importer/ exporter and the name of the CHA prominently at the top of such documents. The aforesaid clauses do not obligate the CHA to look into such information which may be made available to it from the exporter/ importer. The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through customs house and in that 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, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and veritable documents. The mis-declaration would be attributable to the client if wrong information were deliberately supplied to the CHA. Hence there could be no guilt, wrong, fault or penalty on the appellant apropos the contents of the shipping bills..." 12. In respect of the Regulation 10(m), in the impugned order the Principal Commissioner had concluded that the appellants have violated the said Regulation, on the ground that they were not aware that the check lists was used by the exporter ABCCPL for discounting with the banks, and the appellants indulged in the practice of issue of check lists and continued this practice despite knowing the fact that actual exports were not happening, that they never verified the non- completion of exports for previously issued House Bills of Lading/MTDs rather they continued to issue check lists for fresh invoices. It is a fact admitted by both sides and evidently on record that only 26 shipping bills were filed, that too only once on 12.02.2015. It is also a fact duly reflected at para 4.10.11 of SFIO report that in the statement of Shri Sanjeev Varma, Director of M/s RSS Shipping P Ltd., (RSSSPL), he had stated that RSSSPL used to fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e prescribed in the Regulation, is "reasonable". This is the only way by which the provisions contained in Regulation 20 can be effectively implemented in the interest of both parties, namely, the Revenue and the Customs House Agent." 14. From the records of the case, we find that there is definitely delay in adjudication and that for the export transactions occurred in February, 2015, the order of revocation of appellant's customs broker license has been passed on 28.05.2021. Revenue is unable to explain why there was such a long delay of 6 years in taking action against appellants, when the information about fraudulent exports was received on 17.01.2019. Though the first order-in-original revoking immediate suspension, was passed on 04.10.2019, action against the appellants under CHALR/CBLR vide Show Cause Notice was issue on 28.10.2019. The impugned order has been passed after nineteen months from the date of issue of SCN. There are no reasons recorded in detail justifying the delay in passing the impugned order by the learned Principal Commissioner. Even if an explanation that could be offered by the department for the delay in show cause proceedings and passing the impugned o....