TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nse No. R-27/DEL/CUS/2011 (PAN No. AFBPM9459D)valid upto 19.02.2031. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Customs Broker having CB License No. R-27/DEL/CUS/2011. Based on Analytics Report No- 07/2023-24 dated 04.05.2023 regarding fraudulent exports by non-existent entities, wherein it was alleged that 17 entities were found to be non-existent at their registered place of business, and these 17 non-existent entities had filed a total of 150 Shipping Bills with an FOB of Rs. 132.76 Cr and availed export benefits.The investigation report recommended action against Customs Brokers who had handled such export be taken in terms of the provisions under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 for their act of omission an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e allegations clearly. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Primus Logistics Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of (A&G ) [2024 (24) Centax 265 (Tri. Del.)]. Learned counsel also submitted that the DGARM Report was incorrect in respect of the appellant. The said report related to exports under LUT by non-existent entities for availing export incentives, IGST refunds or ITC refunds. However, he submitted that the instant S/B No. 9279910 dated 22.03.2022was filed for re-export of imported goods. Hence, there was no question of availing of any export benefit in the present case. Learned counsel stated that the appellant had not violated provisions of Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018 as the appellant had obtained the required KYC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. In this context, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of C.J. Joshi & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [1999 (113) E.L.T. 900 (Tri.-Bom.)] and TV Shanmugam vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2006 (199) ELT 700 (Tri.-Chennai)].In view of above submissions, ld. counsel prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the revocation of CB License of appellant, forfeiture of security deposit and the penalty imposed upon appellant, may also be set aside. 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the appellant did not verify the genuineness of the GSTN while filing the bills of entry or even in export shipping bills. The C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e mandate of the Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 read with the Circular No. 09/2010-Customs dated 08.04.2010, it was incumbent upon the CB to verify identity and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or Information which is evident that the CB have failed to do so. There is no force in submission of CB that they had complied with all obligations prescribed under Regulation 10(n). The order-in-original is contrary to observation made at discussion and findings that CB had handled the export consignment of non-existent exporters. It is evident from the finding that there was collusion by the CB with the said importer/exporter to defraud the exchequer. It is also observed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xports under LUT by non-existent entities for availing export incentives, IGST refunds or ITC refunds. 6. We note that the CB License of the appellant has been revoked on the grounds that Rule 10 (n) of the CBLR, 2018 was violated. The said regulation is reproduced hereafter: "Regulation 10(n): verify correctness of 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;" The basic requirement of regulation 10(n) is that the customs broker should verify the identity of the client and functioning of the client at the declared address by using r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....report or in the impugned order as to how the DGARM came to the conclusion that the exporters did not exist and how after considering the defence submissions, the Commissioner came to a conclusion that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. This case has been made and the licence has been revoked not only taking the alleged communication from DGARM as conclusive proof that the exporters did not exist but also inferring from it that the appellant has not conducted the verification as per Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. The SCN did not even supply a copy of the communication from the DGARM to the appellant, let alone the details of its inquiries which led to the conclusion that the exporters did not exist. The entire case,....