TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5QCH001) under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018. The officer concerned also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon M/s. Purshotam Chatrabhuj Thackar in terms of Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. 1.1 M/s Neminath Industries having IEC No. 0315079053 (hereinafter referred to as the "exporter") filed Shipping Bill Nos. 2014912 and 2014929 both dated 22nd November, 2016 through Customs Broker M/s. Maj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. for export of goods contained in factory stuffed container. 1.2 The officer posted for clearance of Factory Stuffed Container at MSWC CFS suspected the genuineness of the Factory Stuffing Permission produced by M/s. Neminath Industries for the abovementioned two Shipping Bills. The said Factory Stuffing Permission (FSP) produced by the exporter was sent for verification to FSP Cell, JNCH on 8th November, 2016 wherein it was informed that the said FSP letter was not issued by their office. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Central Intelligence Unit (CIU), JNCH on 10th November, 2016 for investigation. 1.3 The goods contained in the abovementioned containers were examined by the officers of CIU, JNCH at CONCOR DRT CFS under panchnama. During further investigation, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipping Bills, 79 Shipping Bills pertaining M/s. Neminath Industries (IEC No. 0315059281) and 20 Shipping Bills pertaining to M/s. Aadinath Industries (IEC No. 0314078461) were filed using FSPs. 1.6 The statement of Shri Dilip Purshotam Thackar, partner of the appellant was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 9th June 2021. Another summons was issued to the appellant on 8th April, 2022, whereby Shri Dilip Purshotam Thackar, Partner of the appellant was summoned to produce the copy of Aadhar Card, PAN Card and copies of e-Mails/ documents received from Mr. Tarun Popatlal Jain from his e-Mail Id. In response to the aforesaid summons, the appellant vide letter dated 25th April, 2022, provided the documents as sought in the summons. 1.7 A Show Cause Notice No. 2554/2022-23/ADC/CEAC/CAC/JNCH was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva calling upon to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed under Section 114 (iii) of the Act and as to why suitable action as per Regulation 19, 20 and any other Regulation should not be taken under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. On 29th November, 2023, Order-In-Original No. 1077/2023....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged the abovementioned order-in-Originals dated 24th July, 2023 and 23rd August, 2023 before this Tribunal vide Appeal No. C/10676/2023. On 4th January, 2024 this Tribunal vide Order No. 10041/2024 was pleased to quash and set aside the order-in-original challenged by the appellant. 1.10 A Show Cause Notice No. CUS/LIC/MISC/189/2023- CB was issued by the respondent to call upon to show cause as to why the Customs Broker License issued to the appellant should not be revoked under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018. The inquiry report dated 18th January, 2024 under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 concluded to revoke the license of the appellant, to forfeit the security and to impose penalty on the appellant under Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 for failure to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10 (d) and Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. 1.11 The said show cause notice dated 22nd September, 2023 was adjudicated vide Order-In-Original No. KND-CUSTM-000-COM-16-2023-24, (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") whereby the respondent inter-alia held that the appellant failed to act in accordance with obligation as mentioned i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mely, M/s. Maj Shipping Private Limited, M/s. Purshottam Chatrabhuj Thacker and other brokers mentioned in the order, are not liable to penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962." 2.2. It has also been mentioned in the order that some of the Customs Brokers have stated that for export of the consignments , they have dealt with Mr. Tarun Jain and Mr. Lokesh Bansal who are neither exporter nor IEC holder. However, admittedly, authority letters, KYC documents etc. of the exporters were obtained and the IEC was verified by the Customs Brokers on the DGFT website. Therefore, the mere fact that the Customs Brokers were dealing with Mr. Tarun Jain and Mr. Lokesh Bansal, who had provided authenticated IEC along with KYC of the exporters, cannot be reflect that Customs Brokers had failed to comply with the "due diligence" requirement under Regulation 11 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. 2.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that above mentioned order dated 29.11.2023 attained finality and therefore, when the officer concerned gave clean chit to the appellant then another Customs Authority proceeding under the provisions of CBLR, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etc. Since, in the present case, the Central Excise officials had granted FSPs after considering all the documents, the Appellant cannot be expected to go beyond the documents provided to them. 2.8. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has not violated Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2013 read with Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 which require the Appellant to exercise due diligence. According to this regulation the Customs Broker has to 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. Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 does not contemplate that the Customs Broker has to physically go to the premises of importer/exporter to ensure that they are functioning at the declared premises. Further, it was an ongoing export under the supervision of Central excise officials and the relevant documents of previous exports were verified. Therefore, the Appellant has duly fulfilled the mandate of Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. The learned Counsel for the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intention, the Appellant cannot be made liable under CBLR, 2018. 2.13. The learned Counsel for the appellant finally submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent for revocation of Customs Broker License is without any basis and it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. The Authorized Representative submitted that the impugned Order-In-Original No. KND-CUSTM-000-COM-16-2023-24 has been passed by the officer after taking into consideration all the facts of the case and relevant provisions of CBLR. The appellant was throughout negligent and he failed to observe "Due Diligence". Therefore, the customs broker license issued to the appellant was rightly revoked and there is no need to interfere in the impugned order. He pleaded that the appeal may be dismissed. 3.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the Authorized Representative and perused the record. 4. We are of the view that the impugned order has been passed by the officer concerned after taking into consideration all the peculiar facts of the case and the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the Regulation 10 (D) and 10 (N) of CBLR, 2018. 4.1. We have gone through th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the CB. In the findings of the IR, the para 19.4. reads as under- 19.4 From the statements of the persons recorded in this case, it is observed that Mr. Tribhavan Budhiram Verma was introduced to Mr.Tarun Jain by Mr. Lokesh Bansal, who was a daily wager and worked in Mr. Tarun Jain's factory for 2-3 months. As per the statements of Central Excise Officers, Truck Drivers and other persons recorded Mr. Lokesh Bansal was handling the work related to stuffing of containers and Mr. Tarun Jain was coordinating with Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders for clearance of the above mentioned stuffed containers by providing forged and fabricated documents. Both, Mr. Lokesh Bansal and Mr. Tarun Jain collaborated to execute the forgery and fraud to avail drawback fraudulently in respect of the said exports. Further, Mr. Lokesh Bansal used to have cheque book of Mis. Neminath Industries & Others signed in advance by Mr. Tribhavan Budhiram Verma/Nath & Mr. Damer Bahadur Subba, Mr. Lokesh Bansal was operating those Bank accounts with the help of employee of Mr. Tarun Jain. Based on the forged letters submitted to Bank and impersonating as Superintendent of CIU JNCH, when the bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Customs Broker failed to act in accordance with their obligation as mentioned in Regulation 10(d) & 10 (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 as they did not verify the address, or verified it and found it to be non-existing but did not report the same. It has been a serious lapse on part of the Customs brokers, which resulted in loss of revenue. Inquiry Officer has confirmed the contravention of said regulation by the CB. Thus, the CB has contravened the provisions of Regulations 10 (d) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. 4.8. We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Customs House (Kandala) as it is based on proper appreciation of facts of this case and relevant provisions of CBLR, 2018. 4.9. As far as the argument of the appellant that in the impugn Order-In-Original dated 29.11.2023 issued by the Additional Commissioner, NS-II, Nhava Sheva that he has given clean chit to the appellant. We are of the view that this argument of the appellant is not proper. It is pertinent to mention here that Additional Commissioner of Customs Nhava Sheva of Order-In-Original dated 29.11.2023 has observed as follows :- "45. However, I find that Licensin....