TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontainers were exported in the name of above mentioned companies and similar modus operandi have taken place on inflated value by manipulation of documents. It was found that no factory stuffing permission had been issue to three of the above mentioned exporters. Since they were found to have filed total number of 1474 shipping bills with total FOB value of Rs. 5,43,58,38,842/-. The customs brokers of these exporters were also investigated. Statements of all concerns were recorded by the department based whereupon following were found to be the customs brokers who filed shipping bills on behalf of the M/s. M/s. Neminath Industries, M/s. Adinath Industries and M/s. Arihant Industries: M/s. Maj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. M/s. IAL Cleford Logistics Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Bablani Clearing Forwarding & Logistic Co. Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Ajay Overseas Shipping M/s. Skystar Clearing & Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Ascent Logistics, M/s. Threestar Forwarders Pvt Ltd M/s/ Akansha Logistics M/s. A M Logistics, M/s. Premier Clearing Agency Pvt Ltd. M/s. Indian Shipping Services, M/s. Fourstar Enterprises ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Arihant Industries where the goods were under factory stuffing permission as was given by the central excise authorities. It is impressed upon that once goods were factory stuffed, the CHA who is handling the container at port cannot be held liable for any other alleged misdeclaration. 3.1 It is further submitted that all the KYC documents were available with the appellant, hence, the appellant has wrongly been held liable for the alleged violation of Regulation 11 (n) of CBLR,2013. The documents such as GST registration, bank account details, excise registration, PAN card etc. were all government/bank issued documents. The appellant as CHA is not supposed to verify the correctness of those documents and cannot be held liable if any fault is found with those documents. Hence, the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority are liable to be set aside. The Orderin- Original dated 13.09.2023 as has been passed with respect to the customs show cause notice has already refrained for recommending any action against CHA under CBLR, 2013. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions to impress upon that CHA cannot be held responsible for the acts of the exporter an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appellant has not acted in accordance with their obligations as mentioned under Regulation 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. To adjudicate the correctness of these findings we foremost perused both these regulations : Regulation 11(d) of CBLR, 2013: advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case f non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013: verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, identity of his client and functioning of this client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; 5.2 We observe it to be the undisputed fact on record that the present appellant has filed only 4 shipping bills of M/s. Arihant Industries. It is also an admitted fact that factory stuffing permission though was not available with M/s. Neminath Industries and M/s. Adinath Industries but M/s. Arihant Industries had factory stuffing permissions as issued by the Central Excise Officers. It is Circular No. 20/2010 dated 22.07.2010 issued by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 44.5 .............I find that Customs Brokers were never present at the time of stuffing of the container. In fact, there was no statutory or any other requirement stipulated under by way of any Instructions/ Standing Orders under the CBLR-2013 or the Customs Act, 1962, to be present at the premises of the exporters at the time of examination/stuffing of the export goods, since the examination and stuffing were carried out under the supervision of the jurisdictional Central Excise officers and the containers were sealed with Central Excise Seals. 44.6 So long as the identity of the exporter is established based on the IEC, PAN and export documents are prepared based on documents given by the exporter and the container stuffing was done under the supervision of the Central Excise Officers, Customs Brokers' action cannot be faulted. Even if there is any wrong declaration of the value of exports, the responsibility for the same cannot be fastened on to the Customs Brokers as the goods were examined, stuffed and sealed under the supervision of Central Excise Officers in presence of the exporter. 44.7 The investigation reveals that the Customs Brokers were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undertaken by the customs authorities there can be no reason to doubt the identity of the importer or exporter named therein. It is held that it would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to enquire into and verify the genuineness of IE code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction. 5.5 In the present case, there is nothing or record to show that the appellant/CHA had a prior knowledge about the exporters mentioned in the IE code to be non-existing person. It is apparent from record that one M/s. Lokesh Bansal, the partner of Aadinath Industries, he only used to manage bank account of M/s. Neminath Industries. The factory stuffing permission is also alleged to have been forged in the name of M/s. Neminath Industries. Though the factory stuffing permission in name of M/s. Aadinath Industries i.e. the exporter of the present appellant is also found forged but It is also an apparent fact mentioned in the show cause notice itself that the export invoice for the containers was signed by the Central Excise Officer which later got forged. Similar had been the modus operandi in case of M/s. Arihant Industries but apparently there is no such allegation vis-à-vis....