TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, 1984 (CHALR) and now Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. 2.2 During an investigation conducted by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit (DRI MZU), enquiry was held with the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE on overvaluation of export goods. In a reply letter dated 08.03.2018, it was reported by the said Consulate General that from scrutiny of the documents provided by Federal Customs Authority, Dubai, it appeared that the goods have been cleared with unit values much lower than what was declared to customs authorities in India at the time of export. On the basis of such specific information received from DRI, Mumbai by Customs officers of Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch-Exports [SIIB(X)], Air Cargo Complex carried out further investigation, and it was found that certain exporters are overvaluing the export goods in order to avail higher ineligible drawback. Hence, the department had initiated investigation against such exports done by M/s World Wide Export, Mumbai. Accordingly, detailed investigation was conducted and it was found that there were a number of export consignments cleared under 31 Shipping Bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offering a personal hearing to the appellants on 15.01.2024 and therefore, to this extent the impugned order is required to be examined on merits even though it had not taken cognizance of the inquiry report. In impugned order dated 26.04.2024, learned Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) had revoked the CB License of the appellants, forfeited entire amount of security deposit, besides imposition of penalty on the appellants under Regulations 17(7), 14 and 18 ibid. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants contends that all the allegations of violation of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 in their case have been countered by them. The main argument advanced by the Learned Advocate against the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, is that the appellants had filed only one S/B in respect of the exporter M/s World Wide Export, and even here no export incentive was claimed and finally the export consignment was withdrawn on account of port of export being not in tandem with their export requirement; and the export consignment was sent back to the exporter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustainable. 4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the findings made by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) in the impugned order and submitted that all the violations under Regulation 10 ibid, has been examined in detail by the Principal Commissioner. Thus, learned AR had justified the action taken by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) in revocation of the appellant's CB license and for imposition of penalty, forfeiture of security deposit in the impugned order. By relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Atlantic Customs Brokers Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai - 2023 (11) TMI 486 - CESTAT Mumbai for seeking imposition of penalty, even where the inquiry report had held that the charges framed were not proved, he stated that on the same analogy the impugned order imposing penalty is sustainable. 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), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rification of his client and has not verified the business premises of the exporter. 6.3 However, he held that since the Inquiry Officer in his report has held that the violation of regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018 as having not been proved and as he also observes that there is nothing on record which proves that the CB's conduct in respect of said export clearance had led to delay and inefficiency, he had concluded that the CB had not violated the provisions of Regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. 7. Firstly, on the facts of the case, we find that the appellants CB though filed one S/B in respect of the export under S/B No. 4709543 dated 15.12.2015 for clearance of imitation Jewellery; the said export consignment did not involve any export incentive and they had not claimed any such export benefit. Further, the said export consignment was given Let Export Order (LEO) permitting its export by the jurisdictional customs officer on 15.12.2015 itself under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is only on account of export consignment is to be shipped through different port, a request was made by the exporter and the export consignment was allowed by Assistant Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 'customs broker' is expected to explain the entirety of the law to the client; either the allegation is vague or the obligation is vague with neither contingency furthering the case against the appellant. It is, probably, owing to this conceptual commotion that the licencing authority has proceeded to uphold the charge on the supposition that exporter could not have executed overvalued exports without collusion from the appellant. That bridging of supposition with breach of obligation is too far-fetched to accept. The easiest of misdeclaration to undertake is overvaluation of export goods for the requirement to repatriate export proceeds confers advantage of presumption of correctness of contracted value combined with incomparability of local prices; it would appear that unnecessary premium has been placed on the need of a fellow conspirator for such overvaluation to succeed. The conclusion in the impugned order has nothing to do with obligation and is also not founded on any fact on record. The charge of having breached regulation 10(d) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 has been inappropriately held to be proved. 7. Likewise, it is seen that allegation of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and had failed to furnish details called for. The contention of appellant right from the beginning had been that no summons had even been issued to them in connection with investigation into the exports of M/s World Wide Export and, at no stage, did the inquiry officer or the licencing authority ever counter this response with any record to the contrary. Indeed, as we have noted supra, it is moot if the suspension would have been revoked in such circumstances. In any case, this obligation does not pertain to response to summons or join in investigations. Moreover, as the appellant has pointed out, the regulation is studiously silent on the period for which the records are required to be preserved and the claim of the appellant that records were trashed has not been countered with any instruction requiring preservation beyond reasonable period. Furthermore, we do not find reference to any stipulation by the officer designated for the purpose in the said regulation which should have been the foundation of this allegation and it was merely the inability of the exporter to furnish detailed records that has been attributed to flawed performance of obligation by the appellant. It would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 do not sustain, on the same analogy adopted by the Tribunal in the case referred above on similar exports. 9.1 We further find that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trinity International Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur - (2024) 17 Centax 314 (Tri.-Del) have held customs broker has no locus standi in respect of transaction value of export goods, which is being negotiated by overseas buyer and Indian exporter. Therefore, it was held that the CB in that case is not violated the provisions of CBLR. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted and given below: "7. We have considered the submissions by both sides on this issue. The case of the Revenue is that the exporter over- invoiced exports to claim ineligible drawback. Drawback is a mechanism of reimbursing to the exporter, the taxes and duties which would have been paid or borne by the exporter on the finished goods as well as on the raw materials. Instead of calculating these taxes and duties each case, based on the average incidence of the taxes and duties on each type of goods, a drawback schedule is notified by the Government which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and any assessment in which the duty assessed is nil; 9. The value of the imported goods in the Bill of Entry is determined as per Section 14 of the Act read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 . The value of export goods in the Shipping Bill is determined as per Section 14 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007. Section 14 states that for the purpose of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (under which the rates of import and export duties are prescribed) or any other law for the time being in force, the value shall be the transaction value, i.e., the value actually paid or payable for import of the goods at the place of importation or export of the goods at the place of exportation subject to some conditions and Rules. In respect of imports, Rule 12 of the Import Valuation Rules authorizes the proper officer to reject the transaction value under certain circumstances and redetermine it based on the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods (Rule 4), value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods (Rule 5), value arrived at through deductive method (Rule 7), etc. In cases of exports, the....