TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dubious exports made by both the firms to avail IGST refund. Shri Ganga Singh Yadav, proprietor of M/s Aero Export failed to appear despite several summons issued. 3. Statement of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jha, proprietor of M/s. Yellowsky Exports was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 [Act], where he admitted that he was the proprietor of the firm only on paper and worked as Supervisor on monthly salary of Rs.35,000 to Rs.40,000 per month. It was further stated that on receipt of IGST refund, he was sent to report to Shri M.K. Arora of M/s. Jetset Shipping Pvt. Ltd at his office, where Shri Arora explained him that the goods were being exported to Dubai by this firm and goods have been purchased from different suppliers. The exports have been affected by the CHAs, namely, M/s. Jetset Shipping Private Limited, M/s. Prakash Kushwaha & Co. and M/s. Ramesh Transport Company. 4. During the course of investigation, statement of Shri Satyaprakash Kushwaha, proprietor of M/s. Prakash Kushwaha & Co. was recorded, wherein he stated that Shri M.K. Arora had requested him to file the shipping bills for M/s. Yellowsky Exports, and export documents, and the payment by way of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ched the provisions of the regulations. 10. We may first examine whether the present case is covered by the decision of this Tribunal relied on by the appellant in their own case. On examining the factual matrix of the two cases, we find that the same are distinguishable. Firstly, the allegation in the earlier case were made out only for violation of Regulation 10(n), whereas in the present case, the allegation is that the appellant violated Regulation 10(a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10(m) and 10(n) and as a result, the scope of consideration in the earlier case was limited and, therefore, the present case cannot be said to be covered by the earlier decision. The decision relied on by the appellant in their own case was based on the decision of the earlier Division Bench of the Tribunal in Mauli Worldwide Logistics versus Commissioner Customs, New Delhi (Airport & General) [Final Order No. 50561/2022 dated 4.07.2022], where also the allegations were restricted and limited only to the violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(n). Moreover, factually the allegations here are more serious as the investigation revealed that the appellant himself have been found to be involved in the dubio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hdrawal of the amount and transfer of funds were also arranged by the Chartered Accountant and his brother. The transporter and E-way bill and other documents were also managed by them. All this clearly reflects that the CB was aware of the entire modus-operandi and it was within his knowledge that proprietors of the two exporter firms were only dummy proprietors and they had no control on the export transaction. In such a situation the CB is under an obligation firstly to advise the client or otherwise inform the department, however they failed to perform the duties under the regulations. 13. The very fact that the CB was aware of the export being transacted in a dubious manner and kept quiet, clearly proves the allegation that the CB was part of the dubious exports. The involvement of the CB is further substantiated by the statement of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jha, that he was supposed to report back to Shri M.K. Arora, who used to brief them about the details of the exports. Similarly, Shri Satyaprakash Kushwaha, proprietor of M/s Prakash Kushwaha & Co. (CHA) stated that at the instance of Shri M.K. Arora, the shipping bills were filed by their company for M/s. Yellowsky Exports,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entic information. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the various documents IEC, GSTIN, PAN and AADHAAR Cards, which the exporter firms have submitted. Although there is no obligation on the CB to look into the information made available by the importer or exporter as he acts merely as a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through Customs House and he is not an inspector to verify the genuineness of the transaction moreso grant of these documents is proof regarding verification of facts, however, when the CB himself is a party to the dubious export the compliance of the KYC norms is just a farce and, therefore, violation of Regulation 10 (n) is made out against the CB. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed above, it is apparent that CB has failed to discharge his duties with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay. As per his own statement, the CB had knowledge of the illegal exports conducted by some other persons and the proprietors shown were merely on paper having no knowledge of the actual activity of exports. Despite that CB did not act with due diligence or with utmost efficiency....