TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the data of the GST registrants and identified risky exporters who may have been involved in IGST refund frauds. DGARM also identified the Customs Brokers who handled exports of such exporters including the appellant. DGRAM got the existence of some of these exporters verified from field formation and found that they were not existence. Based on the analysis, DGARM wrote to the concerned commissioners including the respondent herein to take action under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 14.12.2020 SCN was issued to the respondent which culminated in the impugned order. 3. As per the SCN the appellant had handled exports in respect of 8 suspected exporters listed in table 1 of the SCN. Of this physical verification was conducted only in respect of one-M/s Windchime Overseas Pvt. Ltd.-through the GST officers. The report of the Assistant Commissioner who conducted the verification is as follows: "Remarks of jurisdiction officer (RUD-I): "On physical and financial verification of the exporter assessee, it was found to be suspicious, therefore, the assessee in pursuance of CBIC Circular No. 131/1/2020-GST dated 23.01.2020 is non-bonaf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0(n) mandates the Customs Broker to verify the identity of the importer by way of independent documentation and the appellant ad done so. All the documents which were collected from the exporters at the time of processing of shipping bills were submitted during the adjudication proceedings; (v) The only thing against the appellant is a report by DGARM that the exporters were found to be non-existent which is not on the basis of any evidence; (vi) Even if the exporter was found non-existent at the address, the appellant had verified their existence on the basis of the documents issued by the Government Office and he cannot be held accused of violation Regulation 10(n); and (vii) As far as the sole exporter in respect of which verification was done in this case is concerned, the appellant had obtained their import export code, GSTIN, PAN and bank details. Therefore, the appellant had sufficiently fulfilled the requirements of regulation 10(n) and, therefore, was not liable to action under the CBLR 2018. In view of the above, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. Submissions of the Revenue 10. Learned authorised representative appearing for the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....client were indeed, issued by the concerned government officers or does the Customs Broker have to ensure that the officers had correctly issued these documents. In our considered view, Regulation 10(n) does not place an obligation on the Customs Broker to oversee and ensure the correctness of the actions by Government officers. Therefore, the verification of documents part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker is fully satisfied as long as the Customs Broker satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were, indeed issued by the concerned officers. This can be done through online verification, comparing with the original documents, etc. and does not require an investigation into the documents by the Customs Broker. Therefore, the appellant was correct in verifying the GSTIN issued by the department on the GST portal. The presumption is that a certificate or registration issued by an officer or purported to be issued by an officer is correctly issued. Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872 requires even Courts to presume that every certificate which is purported to be issued by the Government officer to be genuine. It reads as follows: "79. Presumption as to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oker could obtain; documents issued by any other officer of the Government or even private parties (so long as they qualify as independent, reliable and authentic) could meet this requirement. While obtaining documents is probably the easiest way of fulfilling this obligation, the Customs broker can also, as an alternative, fulfill this obligation by obtaining data or information. In the factual matrix of this case, we are fully satisfied that the appellant has fulfilled this part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n). 18. The fourth and the last obligation under Regulation 10(n) requires the Customs Broker to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents or data or information so long as it is reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. Customs formations are only in a few places while exporters or importers could be from any part of the country and they hire the services of the Customs Brok....