TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dj.(X) ACC dated 23.12.2023 received in Customs Brokers (CB) Section, New Custom House (NCH), reporting violation of CBLR, 2018. Preliminary investigation revealed that three Shipping Bills (S/Bs) No. 8986426, 8986316 and 8986318, all dated 19.11.2018, was filed by an exporter M/s Jamilar International Private Limited, New Delhi, a merchant exporter with higher/inflated prices of export goods viz. 'USB cables' with an intention of availing ineligible IGST refunds/benefits. These shipping bills were filed through the appellant CB at the Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai declaring over valued prices with the sole intention of availing substantially higher ineligible IGST refunds. 2.2 Further, physical verification about the business premises of the exporter M/s Jamilar International Private Limited revealed that they were not traceable and the summons issued could not be delivered, and the exporter did not participate in the investigation. The market survey conducted by the Customs investigation agency redetermined value of all the three shipping bills as per Customs (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 at Rs.28,08,000/- as against the declared value of Rs.2,18,02,500/-. Thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat learned Principal Commissioner had not considered the factual details submitted by them during the adjudication proceedings and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. He further stated that the departmental officers of Customs Preventive, Delhi had verified the premises of exporter M/s Jamilar International Private Limited and submitted a report dated 01.08.2019 which disclosed that two addresses mentioned in the GST registration could not be located and the addresses of the Directors of the exporter were existing but no person with the name of the Directors were found residing in those addresses. However, in the statement given by the exporter dated 05.12.2024 he had stated that they had admitted that the exporter had changed the address of exporter without informing DGFT. Since there is a change in the address of the exporter, subsequent to the exports, the findings of the learned Principal Commissioner that the exporter did not exist in the said address is factually incorrect. Further, there is no evidence on record to allege that the appellants have not advised the exporters properly, did not maintain records of transactions handled by them, identification of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of export goods for cancellation of their CB license, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty on the appellants is not sustainable. 4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the findings made by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, in the impugned order and submitted that all the violations under Regulation 10 ibid, has been examined in detail by the adjudicating authority. Thus, learned AR justified the action of Principal Commissioner of Customs in suspension of the appellant's CB license, as well as imposition of penalty, forfeiture of security deposit in the impugned order and stated that the same are sustainable in law. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the case records. 6.1 The issue involved herein is to decide whether the appellant Customs Broker has fulfilled all his obligations as required under CBLR, 2018 or not. The specific sub-regulations which were alleged to have been violated by the appellants are Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, and hence there are certain distinct charges framed against the appellants. We find that the Regulation 10 ibid, provide for the obligations that a Customs Broker is expected to fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or against the Customs Broker, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position. (4) The Customs Broker shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines permission to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing. (5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording his findings thereon submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1). (6) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall furnish to the Customs Broker a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and shall require the Customs Broker to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report. (7) The Principa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d prima facie framing of charges into the allegation of acts of commission or omission of the Customs Broker or a F card holder or a G-card holder, as the case may be, under these regulations thereunder which would render him unfit to transact business under these regulations." 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 (d), (e) and (n) of Regulation 10 ibid as they did not advice the exporter properly on the need to file declaration with correct details; they did not exercise due diligence and report of any non-compliance by the exporter, to the DC/AC for necessary action. Further, t the exporter could not be located in the address furnished in the S/Bs during verification conducted by the department. Thus, the adjudicating authority had passed the impugned order confirming all the allegations of violation of above Regulations of CBLR, 2018 for justifying the suspension of the appellants CB license. 7.1 Further, plain reading of the above legal provisions of Regulation 17 of CBLR state in clear terms that the inquiry proceedings have to be followed as per the procedure pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited were also recorded on 05.12.2018. Upon completion of such investigation, the customs authorities have issued SCN dated 01.02.2023 to the exporters and the CBs as co-noticees. Further, the said SCN had also been adjudicated and on the basis of which the present proceedings under CBLR, 2018 had been initiated. Further, no specific evidence has been placed on record to show that there was involvement of the appellants CB in such overvaluation of the export goods. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view, that there is no specific grounds to evidentially prove that the appellants CB license is liable for suspension under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018. 8.1 We would now take up for examination each of the alleged violations of CBLR, 2018, one by one, as follows. In respect of Regulation 10(d) the adjudicating authority had found that the appellants CB's job is not limited to filing the documents as given by the exporter, but to question the true declaration of description, classification, licensing compliance and valuation before accepting the same; and the appellants CB was required to be cautious and curious about the proper value range of goods so as to advise and ensure the corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Regulation 10(e) ibid. 9.2. The charges framed under CBLR, 2018 for which the adjudicating authority is required to give specific findings on the basis of inquiry proceedings conducted as per Regulation 17 and 18 ibid. Further, with respect of the value of export goods, the appellants CB did not impart any specific information to the exporter, rather it is the case that such information was provided by the exporter to the appellants CB. Thus, it is not feasible to sustain a charge on the appellants CB, that they did not exercise due diligence to impart correct information to their clients on the basis of market survey done much later after the exports in the past cases having been allowed for export by the very same Customs authorities at ACC, Mumbai. Therefore, we are of the view that conclusion arrived at by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) is without any basis of documents or facts, in the impugned order with respect to Regulation 10(e) ibid, and therefore it is not sustainable. 9.3 We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I&G), IGI Airport, New Delhi reported in 2017 (354) E.L.T. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 paragraph 27(a) of the order. It was obligatory on the part of the Commissioner to have mentioned the documents and discussed the same but all that has been stated in the impugned order is that having gone through the submissions of the Customs Broker, it is found that there is no force in the submissions. The finding recorded by the Commissioner that the required documents were not submitted is, therefore, factually incorrect. 35. The Commissioner, therefore, committed an error in holding that the appellant failed to ensure due compliance of the provisions of Regulation 10(n) of the Licensing Regulations." 10.5....