TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following order: ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred in terms of Regulation 14 &18 read with Regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018 (i) I hereby revoke CB License No. R-55/DEL.CUS/2006 (PAN AAHPC2938G) valid up to 31.05.2028 of M/s. Pushpanjali Logistics; (ii) I direct the CB to immediately surrender the original CB Licence No. R-55/DEL/CUS/2006 (PAN AAHPC2938G) valid up to 31.5.2028 along with all „F/G/H cards issued thereunder; (iii) I order for forfeiture of the amount of security deposit furnished by them; (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s Pushpanjali Logistics (PAN AAHPC2938G) under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018. 26. This order is being issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the CB or any other persons(s)/firm(s) etc. under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules/Regulations framed there under or any other law for the time being in force for the present or any other past violations committed by them." (emphasis supplied) 3. The factual matrix which lead up to the issue of this order is that the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management DGARM of the Central Board of Indirect taxes and Customs a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10(d) and 10 (n) 8. The allegation in the show cause notice and the finding in the impugned order that the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d) and (n) is based on the fact that the appellant had filed 2 shipping Bills in the name of M/s Arise Enterprises Arise (of which one was purged by the system because no goods were brought for export within time) and ready-made garments were exported against the shipping Bill declaring high values to claim undue export benefits. The Additional Commissioner of Customs Mundra, had passed Order in Original dated 7.7.2023 wherein he held that on verification, Arise was found to be non-existent. Based on this order of the Additional Commissioner, Mundra that Arise did not exist, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant, who filed the Shipping Bill for Arise, had violated Regulations 10(d) and (n) of CBLR, 2018. 9. Regulation 10(d) reads as follows: 10. Obligations of Customs Broker- A Customs Broker shall- .... (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shipping bill was found to be non-existent; b) The profile of Arise itself was suspicious because it was usually engaged in the business of footwear and had obtained a new GST registration for garments ostensibly to avail undue export benefits; c) Even the rent agreement uploaded by Arise on the GST portal to obtain the registration was found to be fake; and d) On verification, Arise was found to be non-existent and therefore, its GST registration was cancelled. 16. We find that no inference can be drawn from the above that the appellant had not advised Arise to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act or other allied Acts or rules or regulations or that it was aware of the violation of any Acts or Rules by Arise and had not brought it to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. 17. In fact, the appellant, as the Customs Broker, had neither any role or authority or responsibility with respect to the GST registration of Arise. It is between Arise which had applied for the GST registration and the officer who issued the registration. If the entity was non-existent and the officer issued a benami GST registration to a non-existent entity, the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods to avail undue export benefits. The appellant, as the Customs Broker, was supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers/exporters and the department and the appellant failed to do so. For all these reasons, he held that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n). 24. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on several orders of this Tribunal on similar revocation of Customs Brokers‟ licences where the exporters had valid GST registrations issued by the GST officers and IEC issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade but after export, on verification by the department, the exporters were found to be non-existent. In such cases, it was held that there was no violation of Regulation 10(n). She prayed that this case being identical to these cases, the revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and the penalty imposed may be set aside. 25. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue vehemently supported the impugned order. 26. We have considered the submissions. The responsibility under Regulation 10 (n) does not extend to physically going to the premises of each of the exporters to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. Wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. This obligation can be broken down as follows: a) Verify the correctness of IEC number b) Verify the correctness of GSTIN c) Verify the identity of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information d) Verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information 30. Of the above, (a) and (b) require verification of the documents which are issued by the Government departments. The IEC number is issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade and the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs of the Government of India or under the Governments of State or Union territory. The question which arises is does it mean that the Customs Broker to satisfy himself that these documents or their copies given by the client were indeed issued by the concerned government officers or does it mean that the Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by a Government officer so long as it is valid. In this case, there is no doubt or evidence that the IEC, the GSTIN and other documents were issued by the officers. So, there is no violation as far as the documents are concerned. 32. The third obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the identity of the client using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. In other words, he should know who the client is and the client cannot be some fictitious person. This identity can be established by independent, reliable, authentic: a) documents; b) data; or c) information 33. Any of the three methods can be employed by the Customs Broker to establish the identity of his client. It is not necessary that it has to collect information or launch an investigation. So long as it can find some documents which are independent, reliable and authentic to establish the identity of his client, this obligation is fulfilled. Documents such as GSTIN, IEC and PAN card issued etc., certainly qualify as such documents. However, these are not the only documents the Customs Broker could obtain; documents issued by any other officer of the Govern....