TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. 2.2 An offence report in the form of an order dated 28.11.2023 was received from Group-VI, Air Cargo Customs Commissionerate (ACC), Sahar, Mumbai wherein it was indicated that the appellant CB had handled the import consignment of an importer M/s Affinity Enterprises, New Delhi vide Bill of Entry (B/E) No.8686461 dated 14.05.2022 involving undeclared items viz., 7840 nos. of tempered glass, 12850 nos. of mobile back guard films, 1120 nos. of smart watch screen guard and 30 nos. capacitance pen, which were brought into country in violation of the customs statute. The imported goods were examined by the Central Intelligence Unit (CIU) of ACC on 18.05.2022; and the same was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Seizure Memo dated 30.05.2022. Statement of Shri Manish P Joshi, G Card holder of appellant CB firm was also recorded by the department. On the above basis, the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I had concluded that there is a prima facie case against the appellant for having contravened Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), 10(n) and 10(q) of CBLR, 2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Counsel stated that the appellant CB did not have any prior knowledge about the fact that the importer is going to mis-declare the goods or is to bring excess quantity of goods not declared therein; they had filed the declaration for importation as per the documents received through the importer. He further stated that for the acts of misdeeds done by the importer, the appellant CB cannot be held liable. Thus, he claimed that the appellant did not contravene any of the Regulations ibid. Further, he stated that action for revocation of license taken for the failure on the part of the importer, without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant for cross examination, and hence the same is not legally sustainable in view of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay, Telangana. 3.3 In support of their stand, the learned Counsel had relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Telangana, in the respective cases mentioned below: (i) Mehul & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 644 (Tri. - Bom); (ii) The Principal Commissioner of Customs (G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; ... (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; (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; ... (m) discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay; (n) verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; ... (q) maintain all records and accounts that are required to be maintained under these regulations and preserve for at least five years and all such records and accounts shall be made available at any time for the inspection of officers authorised for this purpose; and....." 6.2 We find that the Principal Commissioner of Customs had com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard, we find that Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018 provide for taking action on the Customs Broker such as revocation of the license, forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, viz., (i) failure to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 8; (ii) failure to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations; and (iii) if the CB has committed any misconduct. Thus, it transpires that the Commissioner of Customs as licensing authority is mandated under CBLR to act on the basis of specific grounds specified as above and not on the basis of future action or apprehension of suspect action that the CB may indulge in. 8.1 On background of the facts of the case as evidenced from the various documents placed as part of the appeal records, we would examine herein the alleged violation of each of the sub-regulations (a), (d), (e), (m), (n) and (q) of Regulation 10 ibid, as held in the impugned order by the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs. 8.2 The appellant CB vide letter dated 10.05.2022 issued by the importer M/s Affinity Enterprises, New Delhi had informed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d goods, could not have been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs by the appellant CB, as the same was found on examination of the imported goods, subsequent to filing of the declaration. Therefore, in our opinion the appellant CB had duly obtained the requisite documents for filing the B/E and for complying with the requirement of declaration of BIS certificate after doing necessary due diligence. Thus, we are of the considered view that the violation of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) ibid, as concluded in the impugned order is not sustainable. 8.4 Learned Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) had come to the conclusion that the CB had violated the provision of Regulation 10(m) ibid, as they did not verify the correctness of BIS certificate which showed their carelessness. As seen from the sub-regulation (m) of Regulation 10 ibid, it deals with speed and efficiency of conducting the business by a customs broker with customs authorities and without any undue delay. As such allegations does not relate to filing of documents, which later found out to be of different brand, it has nothing to do with lack of efficiency or s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. In this regard, a detailed guideline on the list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client/customer is enclosed in the Annexure. It would also be obligatory for the client/customer to furnish to the CHA, a photograph of himself/herself in the case of an individual and those of the authorised signatory in respect of other forms of organizations such as company/trusts etc., and any two of the listed documents in the annexure. "No. Form of Organisation Features to be verified Documents to be obtained 1 Individual (i) Legal name and any other names used (ii) Present and Permanent address, in full, complete and correct. (i) Passport (ii) PAN card (iii) Voter's Identity card (iv) Driving licence (v) Bank account statement (vi) Ration card Note: Any two of the documents listed above, which provides client/customer information to the satisfaction of the CHA will suffice." We find that the above CBIC circular clearly explains the provision of CBLR/CHA Regulations which require the Customs Brokers to verify the ant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ient 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." 9.2 F....