TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued to the appellant has been revoked forfeiture of deposit was also ordered. A penalty of Rs.50,000/- has also been imposed on the appellant. As the issue involved in both the appeals are the same both are taken up together for decision by a common order. 2. The facts of the cases are that the Appellant is a Customs Broker whose CB licence was revoked vide Order No. KOL/CUS/A & A/Pr. Comm/CBS/07/2024 dated 04.03.2024. Again in a separate proceeding, the order dated 19.06.2025 was passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner whereby the CB licence was ordered for revocation and forfeiture of deposit was also ordered. A penalty of Rs.50,000/- was also imposed. Taking note of the order dated 04.03.2024, the Ld. Commissioner has ordered that in case any contrary decision is taken by any higher appellate forum, the order dated 19.6.2025 would prevail. Thus, we are taking up both the orders together for decisions in appeal. 3. Both the proceedings were drawn against the appellant under CBLR consequent to two cases of alleged overvaluation of export goods registered against (i) M/s K.S. Impex vide S.B. Nos. 7841532 and 7841217 both dated 12.02.2023 and (ii) M/s Ankraj Developers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sushil Kumar Singh (Mob. No. 8583858051.); they are doing only export without payment of duty; there was no direct purchase contract/ order entered with the overseas buyer situated in Dubai and Mexico City; the invoices for purchase made from the supplier, were billed to M/S. R.S. Impex, Chennai and material were shipped to their premises, i.e.3/2, Dhapa Road, Kolkata 700039, the local transportation charges were borne by the supplier, i.e. M/S BhagwanJi Enterprise, and that they did not pay any freight charges for the supplies made by them; that they have not received any advance payment for the export of the goods till date. 3.5. Enquiry with Sumit Das, revealed inter-alia that he is engaged in providing services pertaining to clearances of EX1M Cargos including logistics support to their clients. On receipt of the clearance jobs, his firm assign it to the CB Firm i.e. M/S Auro Logistix for custom formalities. 4. In respect of the allegation against the CB, the appellant submits that during investigation the exporter was found physically available and admitted to be in the business of export through someone in Kolkata. Further being referred, the GST authorities intimated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been initiated against the Appellant C.B. on the alleged violation of regulation 10 (b), 10 (d), 10 (m), 10(n) and 10(q) of the CBLR, 2018. The appellant submits that the appellant submits that they have not violated the Regulation 10(d), 10(m) or 10 (n) of the Customs Brokers Regulations, 2018. It is also submitted that the Department has not brought in any evidence to the effect that the appellant was involved any way in the alleged overvaluation of the goods. Accordingly, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing their appeal. 6. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 8. We observe that two separate proceedings have been initiated against the appellant-CB on the allegation that they have not played their role as a CB in respect of two export consignments exported by (i) M/s K.S. Impex and M/s Ankraj Developers Pvt. Ltd. Two cases of alleged overvaluation of export goods have been registered against the said exporters. The submission of the appellant is that they have no role to play in the valuation of export goods. They filed the documents provided by the export....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant presence in processing the export documents at the customs station is not disputed. Thus, we hold that the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(b) against the appellant is not substantiated. 10. The impugned order has held that the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR. The said Regulation 10(d) reads as under: "10. (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, 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." 10.1. In the present case, we observe that the export documents were found in order except a mismatch of vehicle number in supplier's e-way bill. There was no mismatch of quantity and quality of the export goods. There is nothing on record which prove that the appellant acquired any knowledge about any intentional change in the documents forwarded by the exporter. Thus, we hold that the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(d) against the appellant is not substantiated. 11. The impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of M/s K.S. Impex from Mr Pankaj Agarwal as promised; and that he could not produce the envelope in which the said documents were purportedly received the KYC documents of M/s K.S. Impex. In this regard, we observe that the Appellant cannot be held responsible for non-appearance of third person before the Customs Authorities and based on such allegation contravention of Regulation 10 (q) of the CBLR cannot be said to be sustained. We find that the appellant CB has cooperated with the investigation and offered his assistance at all times. As there is no allegation of non cooperation on the part of the appellant, we hold that the allegation of violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(q) against the appellant is not substantiated. 14. We observe that the appellant relied upon various decisions of the Tribunals and High Courts in support of their contention that the CB cannot be held responsible for the violations of overvaluation etc. committed by the exporter. 14.1. We find that this view has been taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.K. Clearing Agency in CUSTA/20/2023/ IA NO: GA/1/2023. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent cannot be held liable for any violation that might have been committed by Just Logistic-1. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard also stands affirmed. The next allegation against the respondent was with regard to violation of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR 2018, which mandates that Customs broker has to verify the correctness of the i.e. Code, GSTIN and the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent and authentic data, documents or information. The appellant had contended before the Tribunal that they have made due verification as required under Regulation 10(n) and has obtained the documents list as i.e. Code, GSTIN etc from independent and reliable sources and had authentic documents and data. The Tribunal examined this aspect of the matter and has found that all those documents are not in dispute and have been issued by various Government agencies and entities, which would go to 6 substantiate the existence of the exporter at the relevant time when these documents were issued. The Tribunal has also taken note of the other facts and also examined as to in what....