TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e physical verification of the appellant's premises on 27.11.2018, it was found that the declared premises at B-176, Jawahar Park, Khanpur, New Delhi was not occupied by the Customs Broker. The premises was occupied by a third party, who stated that no office of the Customs Broker existed at that address. The Department formed an opinion that this itself established non-existence of the declared office. The said audit further revealed that the Customs Broker had cleared Bills of Entry across multiple ports, including ICD-TKD Loni, Dadri Piyala, Palwal, Garhi Harşu, NCH and others, without obtaining mandatory permissions or intimation as required under CBLR, 2018. Irregularities with respect to forged signatures, use of unauthorised persons, sub-letting of licence, concealment of income, payment of customs duty on behalf of importers, and suppression of issuance of DRI Show Cause Notices, were also noticed. It was also alleged that the Customs Broker had falsely claimed physical verification of clients, whereas records showed that he had dealt only with mediators, not the actual importers/exporters. Two DRI Show Cause Notices issued in 201718 were also deliberately concealed fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment. He further contended that the Audit had referred to Mahesh Kaushik's letter dated 08.10.2018 whereby he had informed the policy section that he had been asked to resign and his salaries were due from the appellant. Learned counsel stated that instead of recording his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he was allegedly invited informally and his observations were taken into consideration. As regards the signatures maintained by Policy Section not matching with signatures on Bills of Entry, learned counsel submitted that the policy section had not maintained a upto date list of employees of Appellant's G card holders. He stated that as per Show Cause Notice and Inquiry Report, the Customs Broker had submitted list of his employees where Shri Anil Pandey was shown as G card holder whereas as per list of the policy section, Anil Pandey was not on the list. However, this allegation had been set aside in the impugned order, which established that the Policy Section was not maintaining an upto date list of appellant's employees. Therefore, the allegation that specimen signatures do not match and tantamounts to forgery, is an assumption particularly when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Regulation 10(0). 4.1 Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the Customs Broker was authorised to operate only at ICD Dadri. However, EDW data and records furnished by the Customs Broker himself had established clearance of consignments from numerous other ports without filing Form-C or obtaining approval. Such unauthorised pan-India operation had rendered the statutory control mechanism redundant and was a serious breach of licensing discipline. He further submitted that several Bills of Entry were examined where signatures did not match with any authorised F-Card or G-Card holders. Shri Mahesh Kaushik (G-Card holder) categorically denied signing Bills of Entry purportedly bearing his signatures and stated that he never handled import clearances for the Customs Broker. The Bills of Entry were found to have been signed by G-Card No. 190/2009, which belonged to another Customs Broker altogether conclusively establishing forgery of signatures and use of unauthorised persons, a misconduct of the highest order under the licensing regime. 4.2 Learned Authorized Representative further contended that on several dates, multiple Bills of Entry were cleared from five to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the oral examination and inform the payment particulars to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs referred to in sub-regulation (2) of regulation 4 and the said Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall, on verification of the payment particulars grant license to the applicant within one month of the payment of the said fee: Provided that where the successful applicant fails to make the payment of the said fee within the stipulated period, the right to be granted a license to an applicant shall be forfeited. (2) The applicant who has paid the fee referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall be granted a license by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, as below:- (a) An individual shall be granted the license in Form B1 if that individual has passed the examination referred to in regulation 6. (b) A customs broker's license may be granted to any company, firm or association in Form B2 if at least one director, partner, or an authorised employee, as the case may be, has passed the examination referred to in regulation 6: Provided that at any given time such director, partner or an authorised employee shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; (e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage; (f) not withhold information contained in any order, instruction or public notice relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Customs authorities, as the case may be, from a client who is entitled to such information; (g) promptly pay over to the Government, when due, sums received for payment of any duty, tax or other debt or obligations owing to the Government and promptly account to his client for funds received for him from the Government or received from him in excess of Governmental or other charges payable in respect of cargo or baggage on behalf of the client; (h) not procure or attempt to procure directly or indirectly, information from the Government records or other Government sources of any kind to which access is not granted by the proper officer; (i) not attempt to influence the conduct of any official of the Customs Station in any matter pending befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gulation 6 may engage himself in the work relating to the clearance of goods through customs on behalf of a firm or a company licensed under these regulations. (2) A Customs broker who has been issued a license under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7 shall be issued a photo-identity card in Form F by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be: Provided that in the case of the license issued under clause (b) of sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7, the photo-identity card in Form F shall be issued to the person or persons who has actually passed the examination referred to in regulation 6. (3) A Customs Broker may, having regard to the volume of business transacted by him, employ any number of persons other than an F card holder to assist him after verifying their antecedents and identity at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information: Provided that such an employed person shall possess the Aadhaar number issued to him and that the minimum educational qualification of such persons so employed shall be 10+2, or equivalent. (4) Employment of a person re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (12) The Customs Broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees during their employment................" 6.1 A perusal of the Regulation 10(o) clearly reveals that non-intimation of change of address by a Customs Broker under the CBLR is a regulatory contravention attracting penal consequences. The said obligation is clear, specific and time-bound. It has been submitted by the Ld Counsel that the ICEGATE portal reflected the changed address and it has also been submitted that all communications, challans etc reflected their address. It is not denied that the change of address was not intimated and there is a violation of the regulatory compliance. Non-intimation of a change of address by a customs broker under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) is not an "offence" under the Customs Act, but it is a regulatory contravention attracting penal action. In this context, we note that there is penal regime laid down in Regulation 18 which allows the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to impose a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ignature available with the Policy section. Similarly, another B/E no. 7921075 dated 05/09/2018 was signed by G Card holder Sh Ganesh Pal who was working with M/s RKV Logistics (P) Ltd. Similar allegations have been made in respect of other Bills of Entry. In this context, we note that Regulation 13 requires the CB to employ only persons after obtaining approval of the concerned Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, it is on record that the documents filed by the CB contained signatures of people whose signatures did not tally with those available with the Policy section. It is also a fact that the document had the signature of the G card holder of another CB. These have not been any contrary arguments from the appellant to deny the said allegations. Rule 13 of the CBLR, 2018 is not a due diligence clause, but is the core conduct and supervision provision that makes a CB responsible for how their business and employees operate in relation to customs functions. We note that the Tribunal has consistently differentiated procedural lapses vis a vis substantive breaches which affect the customs revenue/integrity such as misdeclaration, collusion etc. We note that in the Tribunal in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi [2016 (344) ELT 602 (Tri.-Del.)] The non-cooperation of the CB during investigations agencies is a lapse inviting penal consequences. Further, as regards the DRI show cause notices, we note that the learned counsel has submitted that it has been consistently held that they did not receive the said show cause notices. We note that the Revenue has not led any evidence to the contrary. Hence, we hold that these violations are not established. 8. We now take up the issues related to the second appeal wherein it has been alleged that the appellant had violated Rule 7(3) & 7(4) by not submitting Form C of CBLR, 2018 and also violation of Regulation 10 as the CB was involved in excess availment of ROSL by exporters viz. M/s Baba Exports and M/s Krystafab Enterprises. The impugned order has held that the Customs Broker had violated several provision of Regulation 10 and hence has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- since the CB license stood revoked vide order dated 17.10.2019. 9. We note that the impugned order has held that the CB did not cooperate with the ICD, TKD and hence had violated provisions of Regulation 10 (d) (e) and (q). In this context, we note that the relevant Regu....