Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (11) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f two containers bearing Nos. TGHU 24041549 and FSCU 3539037. The declared FOB value of these two containers was Rs 5,22,33,258( Five crore twenty two lakh thirty three thousand two hundred fifty eight) and total drawback claimed was Rs.51,18,864 (Fifty one lakh eighteen thousand eight hundred sixty four). 2. The goods under these containers were examined in the presence of Shri Souvik Guha Sarkar, representative of M/s Linwood Sales Pvt. Ltd., Shri Chandra Sekhar Hore, 'G' card license holder, M/s SKH Freight Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Customs Officers and two independent witnesses. The FOB value of 1,14,480 pieces of 'Women's Leggings' attempted for exports under 6 Shipping Bills was reassessed and ascertained at Rs.81,60,134/- and Rs.7,99,693/- only. 3. DRI intercepted another three containers bearing Nos. EISU 3799380, EISU 3759475 and EMCU 3684964 which said to contain "Readymade Garments Babies Inner". Nine Shipping Bills were filed by M/S SKH Freight Logistics Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the exporter M/s Linwood Sales Pvt. Ltd. against these three containers. The total declared FOB value was Rs.5,78,09,000/- (Five crore seventy eight lakh nine thousand). The t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. 5. The said proposal has been confirmed vide order in original No.75/2018 dated 30.11.2018. 6. We have heard Shri Vedprakash Batra, ld Consultant for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the respondent - Revenue. 7. Ld. Consultant for the appellant has submitted that: The Appellant was granted Custom Broker license by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, New Delhi under regulation 7(1) of CBLR, 2013 on 06.09.2013 bearing No. R-46-DEL/CUS/2013(PAN: AASCS5286K) which was valid upto 05.09.2023 to transact business at Delhi Customs. The Appellant was permitted to transact the business in Kolkata Customs also from 27.10.2016. The DRI after receiving the impugned intelligence recorded the statement of Mr. Chander Sekhar Hore having 'G' Card holder of the appellant. Based thereupon the action has been taken against the appellant. It is submitted that the said statement is neither made the RUD to SCN nor the copy of the same was ever supplied to the appellant. Furthermore it is not coming out from the text of the OIO that under which Act and Section it has been recorded. 8. It is further submitted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing exports/imports is quite important. It acquires more relevance in case of such fraudulent transactions. It is impressed upon that the custom procedures are complicated and the CB/CHA occupies a very important position in the Custom House. He is not only the agent of importer/exporter but also the agent of the Department. Hence, he is liable to safeguard the interest of both the importers as well as the customs department. The Department, therefore, poses a lot of trust in the CHA who in turn is responsible to ensure appropriate discharge of such trust. 13. It is impressed upon that in the present case of proven fraud the CHA has not even opted to come forward. Apparently he has allowed his license to be used by someone else at the behest of yet another person. Resultantly, there is no infirmity in the findings in the order under challenge. Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the following case laws:- (i) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. K.M. Ganatra & Company reported in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). (ii) Decision of this Tribunal in the case of Evershine Customs C & F Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y admitted facts alongwith the absence of the proprietor of the present appellant Shri Ram Pratap, we have no reason to differ from the said findings of the original adjudicating authority that the appellant has transferred his license to Shri Souvik Guha Sarkar to transact the business in appellant's name. The said act is highly impermissible in terms of Regulation 1(4) of CBLR, 2018. In the light of absence of appellant to bring evidence to falsify the evidence brought against him or to cross-examine the witnesses who had deposed about using his license and authority to facilitate a fraudulent export transaction, the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority cannot be faulted. 16. It is the appellant's own case, through Shri Chandra Shekhar Hore, that the exporter was not known to them. They had never met with him nor ever visited his premises. Apparently no authorization letter in favour of the appellant from M/s. Linwood Sales could be produced on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity when violation of Regulation 10 (a) of CBLR has been confirmed against the appellant. 17. As already observed above, the business in customs station was transacted though in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Linwood Sales Pvt. Ltd in February, 2015 but the Directors shown were Shri Krishan Chandra Dey and Shri Dayal Singh. However, the later got substituted by Shri Pradeep Singh alias Anil Singh in August, 2017. The Articles of association of the said company were also found to be forged. No evidence could be brought on record to falsify these findings. In the circumstances, we have no reason to differ from the findings that the appellant has failed to make the appropriate enquiries of their clients prior transacting the business in customhouse station. Hence, the findings confirming the violation of Regulation 10 (k) and 10 (n) are held sustainable. 20. The appellant has challenged the order in question on the ground of it being barred by time. But present is a case of proven fraud of availing false duty draw backs after exporting the cheap/scrap fabric at highly inflated price. Fraud vitiates everything as was observed in the case of Evershine Customs C & F Private Ltd. (supra). The time line otherwise is to avoid the serious repercussions of curtailing the right to carry on the trade or profession by a genuine and diligent custom broker. The object of the Regulations (CBLR) is t....