Delhi High Court - Orders
Falcon India (Customs Broker) vs Commissioner Of Customs (Airport & ... on 16 November, 2023
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CUSAA 80/2022
FALCON INDIA (CUSTOMS BROKER) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. V.S. Negi & Ms. Kavita
Swaroop, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(AIRPORT & GENERAL) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 16.11.2023
1. The Court notes from the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal ["CESTAT"] that the following findings ultimately came to be returned against the appellant herein:
"24. We now proceed to decide the questions framed by us above. Regulation 10 (a) of CBLR 2018 (and erstwhile Regulation 11(a) of CBLR, 2013) mandates that a Customs Broker shall obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. The appellant has not, in this case, obtained any authorization from Shri Madan Gopal in who is the proprietor of Popular Metal Industries but has filed Bills of Entry using this lEC. The appellant obtained the documents from Anil and filed the Bills of Entry knowing that Anil was not the lEC holder and that he has been importing in the name of other companies after DRl booked a case of undervaluation against him. Thus, it is not a case of carelessness on the part of the appellant but is case of deliberately filing benami Bills of Entry. The motive of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2023 at 22:50:50 appellant in doing so, as is evident from the submissions before us, is to keep his clientele through facilitation of such benami transaction. Thus, we find that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(a) of CBLR 2018 (read with Regulation 11(a) of CBLR 2013).
25. Regulation 10(d) of CBLR 2018 (read with erstwhile Regulation l1(d) of CBLR, 2013) requires the Customs Broker to 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. The appellant, we find, has been in this business for over a decade. Evidently, the least he can be expected to know is that true details of the importer must be indicated on the Bills of Entry. It was aware that Anil was importing goods in the name of other companies after DRI booked a case of under valuation against it. It was incumbent upon the appellant to have advised the client to follow the law and not import benami and if the client refused, it was the responsibility of the appellant to report to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. The appellant did not do so and submits that it cannot spy for the department. If it cannot fulfill its obligations under the law, it is not entitled to the Customs Brokers' licence. Thus, we find that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(d) of CBLR 2018 (read with Regulation 11(d) of CBLR 2013).
27. Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018 (read with erstwhile Regulation l1(n) of CBLR, 2013) requires the Customs Broker to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN),identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents/ data or information. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on various decisions as discussed above, to assert that it was not required to personally meet the lEC holder or verify the operation of the business at the address indicated. He would submit that as long as the appellant has obtained the KYC documents from any source, it is sufficient fulfillment of its obligations. The question in this case is who is the client of the appellant. Evidently, as indicated from the statements of the appellant, it was Anil and his son Abhimanyu. The lEC number and name and address of the importer filled in the Bills of Entry were that of Popular belonging to Madan Gopal without his knowledge. This was done by the appellant with the knowledge that the Anil was importing the goods in the name of others using the lEC of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2023 at 22:50:50 others after the DRl booked a case against him. This is a case of not only not verifying the details of the lEC holder but knowingly filing the Bills of Entry using the lEC without the knowledge of the lEC holder. Thus, we find that the appellant has violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR 2018 read with Regulation 11(n) of CBLR 2013."
2. Presently, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to allude to any material on the record on the basis of which it could have been possibly asserted that the appellant had the requisite authorization from M/s Popular Metal Industries whose IEC was utilized for the purposes of facilitating import.
3. Learned counsel would also have to address submissions on whether any substantial question of law would arise at all bearing in mind the findings of fact as have come to be recorded in the order impugned.
4. Let the appeal be called again on 01.02.2024.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NOVEMBER 16, 2023/kk This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2023 at 22:50:51