AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged in the show cause notice [SCN], these allegations were dropped in the impugned order and the issue attained finality to that extent. 5. The factual matrix of this case is that the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management [DGARM] of the Central Board of Excise and Customs [CBIC] analysed data, identified suspicious registrants under the Goods and Services Tax [GST] and got physical verification of some of these suspected registrants and found that they did not exist at all at the declared places of their business. It also found that some of these GST registrants also had importer exporter codes [IEC] from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade [DGFT] and actually exported goods. DGARM further identified which Customs Brokers had processed their exports and conveyed the data to the concerned commissioners. 6. Among the Customs Brokers so identified by the DGARM was the appellant. Based on the information received from DGARM, the Commissioner (Airport & General) New Delhi, who had issued the Customs Broker's licence to the appellant issued a show cause notice dated 24.4.2023 and appointed an inquiry officer. Meanwhile, the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n from the printout of the status of the company from the GST portal itself (a hard copy is presented to the court). g) Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant's Customs Brokers licence may be restored. Submissions on behalf of the Revenue 9. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue supports the impugned order and asserts that it calls for no interference. Findings 10. We have considered the submissions on both sides. DGARM did some analysis and came to the conclusion that several GST registrants did not exist and did not operate from their business addresses at all. It is undisputed that their registrations were issued by the very department which initiated the investigation. Thus, the irresistible conclusion is that if the DGARM is correct, then the department issued several benami (pseudonymous) GSTIN registrations to several entities which did not exist at all. Some of these non-existent entities were also filing GST returns with the department. 11. These allegedly non-existent entities were also issued importer exporter codes (IEC) by the DGFT. Thus, if the DGARM is correct, DGFT had issued benami IECs. 12. As far as the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions by the Government officers. Such an interpretation would amount to saying that the Regulations under the Customs Act prevail over the actions under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 under which the IEC is issued by DGFT and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (or state GST Act) under which the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers. Therefore, the verification of certificates part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker is fully satisfied as long as the Customs Broker satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were, indeed issued by the concerned officers. This can be done through online verification, comparing with the original documents, etc. and does not require an investigation into the documents by the Customs Broker. The presumption is that a certificate or registration issued by an officer or purported to be issued by an officer is correctly issued. Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872 requires even Courts to presume that every certificate which is purported to be issued by the Government officer to be genuine. It reads as follows: "79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. The Court shall presume to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these documents are presumed to be authentic and reliable having been issued by the Government officers. However, these are not the only documents the Customs Broker could obtain; documents issued by any other officer of the Government or even private parties (so long as they qualify as independent, reliable and authentic) could meet this requirement. While obtaining documents is probably the easiest way of fulfilling this obligation, the Customs broker can also, as an alternative, fulfill this obligation by obtaining data or information. In the factual matrix of this case, we are fully satisfied that the appellant has fulfilled this part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n). 19. The fourth and the last obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents or data or information so long as it is reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the p....