TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. An offence report in the form of Investigation Report F. No. SG/Misc-101/2016-17 CIU/JNCH dated 15.12.2022 received in Customs Brokers (CB) Section, New Custom House (NCH), reporting violation of CBLR, 2018. Preliminary investigation revealed that two Shipping Bills (S/Bs) No. 2014912 and 2014929, both dated 02.11.2016, was filed by an exporter M/s Neminath Industries, Thane with fake/non-genuine Factory Stuffing Permission; further, Central Excise invoices submitted to the Customs authorities at the port of export for effecting export of consignment was different from the invoices produced to Central Excise department at the time of factory stuffing and the name of exporter was mentioned differently as M/s Arihant Industries and the quantity and net weight also varied. 2.2 Further, search conducted at the business premises of the exporter M/s Neminath Industries revealed that the Gala No.6 premises was non-existent and at Gala No.1 certain documents pertaining to such exporter was recovered under panchanama proceedings dated 11.11.2016. Further investigation conducted on all such export firms indulging i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation report informing such primary charges does not stand legal scrutiny. Further, he stated that the appellants CB did not had any prior knowledge about the fact that the exporter is going to mis-use the export documents; they had received the documents for through logistics operator Shri Baiju Shekhar, owner of M/s Trans globe Logistics on behalf of exporters viz., M/s Neminath Industries, M/s Aadinath Industries and M/s Arihant Industries and not directly from the exporters, and they had duly verified the existence of the exporters through the statutory documents in the manner prescribed under CBLR. He further stated that for the acts of misdeeds done by the exporters, the appellants CB cannot be held liable. Thus he claimed that the appellants did not contravene these Regulations ibid. 3.2 In support of their stand, the learned Advocate had relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the respective cases mentioned below: (i) K.S. Sawant & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), Mumbai - 2012 (284) E.L.T. 363 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Perfect Cargo and Logistics Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of 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; ... (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;" 6.2. We find that the Principal Commissioner of Customs had come to the conclusion that the appellants CB had violated the above stated sub- regulations (a), (d) and (n) of Regulation 10 ibid as they did not receive the authorisation and export documents directly from the exporters and also did not bother to verify whether such authorisation have been issued by the exporter; appellants CB did not have any interaction with the IEC holder/exporter; they did not meet the exporter personally and had knowledge of the exporter using fake Factory Stuffing Permissions; and they also did not properly verify the KYC documents, which prove that they were not careful and not dil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... action under CBLR was taken only after passage of long time on 15.12.2022. Further, the allegation against the exporter is that they attempted to avail ineligible export incentives such as Drawback, export incentives upon export of goods and that the appellants CB firm had played active role. However, it is also seen from the submission made by the appellants that they have not been imposed with any penalty on account of such export violations. Thus, it is seen that alleged ineligible availment of export benefits is solely on account of the action taken by the exporter such as filing wrong declaration for claiming ineligible export incentives or the failure on the exporter to obtain export proceeds within a reasonable time frame. There is no role of Customs Broker in the above activities of the exporter. Further in respect of the exports that have taken place in November, 2016 necessary investigation was initiated in December, 2016, but the investigation against the appellants CB was started only during December, 2022. Thus, there is no ground for such delayed action by the department, particularly when there is no role for the appellants CB in the activities of the exporter. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not warranted for violation of Regulation 13(b). Accordingly, we are of the view that forfeiture of security tendered by the appellant CHA is sufficient punishment and revocation is not warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the revocation and direct the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) to restore the CHA licence subject to the forfeiture of entire security amount tendered by the CHA." In the absence of any document to prove the claim of mis-declaration of export goods, the findings given by the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order that the appellants has aided and abetted the exporter in availing ineligible export incentives, is difficult to be proved for fastening such liability on the appellants CB for holding them responsible for violation of Regulation 10(a) ibid. 9. In the instant case, the ineligible claim for export incentives was found by the department only on the basis of specific investigation conducted by the CIU of JNCH customs authorities, and hence the appellants CB cannot be found fault for the reason that they did not advise their client exporter to comply with the provisions of the Act. Further, the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not find any legal basis for upholding of the alleged violation of Regulation 10(n) ibid by the appellants in the impugned order on the above issue. 10.4 We find that in the case of M/s Perfect Cargo & Logistics Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi 2021 (376) E.L.T. 649 (Tri. - Del.), the Tribunal had decided the issue of KYC verification of the importer/exporter by the Customs broker and the requirements specified in the CBLR, 2018. "34. 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, reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. For this purpose, a detailed guideline on the list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client is contained in the Annexure to the Circular dated April 8, 2010. It has also been mentioned in the aforesaid Circular that any of the two listed documents in the Annexure would suffice. The Principal Commissioner noticed in the impugned order that any two documents could be obtained. The appellant had submitted two documents and this fact has also been stated in ....