Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s Naman Gupta & Associates.

3. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE The impugned order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs has been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the same is patently illegal and ex-facie violative of fundamental principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, it ignored the fact that petitioner was not granted the right to cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer in coming to the finding of guilt of the petitioner. No reason has been given to justify the denial of right of cross examination to the petitioner as envisaged under Regulation 17 (4). The action of the Inquiry Officer denying the right of the petitioner to cross examine the said witnesses, has prevented the petitioner to raise credible defence against the purported allegations made in the Show Cause Notice, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner, and as such, order dated 29.06.2022, justifying such denial of the right of cross-examination, is illegal, mala fide and violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice offending Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned order has also been challenged on the ground that the same was passed beyond the period of nine months as stipulated in Circular No. 9/2010 Customs dated April 8, 2010 for completion of revocation proceedings under the regulations. Show Cause Notice was also issued beyond the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report and therefore the entire revocation proceedings initiated under Regulation 17 stood vitiated and on that score, the impugned order is liable to be set aside/quashed. Even though the respondent relied upon the statements made by the exporters, it did not consider the letters of authorization and payments made by them through banking mode of transfer. The respondent completely disregarded the letters and emails written by the petitioner to the exporters requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act. Respondent also did not take into consideration that the purported Inquiry made by the jurisdictional officials of the GST department were carried out after six months from the date of the report and there is no finding that the exporters were not in existence on the dates of export. It is submitted that the genuineness of the Importer- Exporter Code Number, GSTIN, Permanent Account Number and Authorized Dealer Code were self-verified by the Indian Customs EDI System at the time of uploading of shipping bills in the system and if any anomaly is found in the details of such particulars of the exporter, the shipping bill cannot be successfully uploaded in the system. The successful uploading of the shipping bills of the exporters are the conclusive proof of the facts that the Importer-Exporter Code Number, GSTIN, Permanent Account Number and Authorized Dealer Code of the exporters were genuine and they were very much in existence on the date of the export. It has also been submitted that the KYC documents submitted by the exporters are public documents issued by the statutory authorities functioning under the Government of India. Such documents were verified from the portal of the authorities and petitioner had no reasons to disbelieve such documents as there is a statutory presumption of its genuineness under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is submitted that the impugned order is an outcome of the purported exercise to save the proper officer of customs, inasmuch as, the proper officer of customs assessed the shipping bills and issued "Let Export Orders" without raising any objection against the value of the exported goods in any manner whatsoever and the customs authorities are hell-bent to penalize the petitioner for the fault of the proper officer of customs, despite the fact that as a Custom Broker, petitioner has no role to assess the value of the goods in any manner whatsoever. It is thus argued that the impugned order is an unreasonable restriction on the constitutional right of the petitioner granted under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

(m), 10 (n) & 10 (q) laid down in CBLR, 2018. He failed to verify the genuineness of Importer/Exporter Code Number, GSTIN, identity and functioning of each of the exporters who are found to be non-existent or not related to export/import business. The shipping bills were filed without verifying the identity of the exporters or ascertaining the veracity of the declarations made in the shipping bills. This was a necessary precaution that the Custom Broker ought to have taken before the documents were filed. This default shows the lack of due diligence and serious misconduct on the part of Custom Broker. Had the CB conducted proper verification as prescribed in the regulation, it could have come to know before hand that "Exporters were not Genuine". It is submitted that merely collecting the KYC documents cannot be treated as fulfillment of the obligations mandated under CBLR, 2018 as few exporters were found to be non-existent during investigation. Reliance has been placed on the statements of two exporters recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act in as much as one of the exporters out of the two who appeared during the investigation, clearly stated that the export was done without his knowledge, while the other admitted that he was lured into the fraudulent export in lieu of monetary benefits.

Regulation 10 (m) - discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay;

The CB had taken up the responsibility of clearance of goods pertaining to exporters who were found to be non-existent or those who were in no way involved in the export/import business. Further, as admitted by the exporters who appeared during investigation, the CB had never met their clients/exporters. These facts are sufficient to prove that the CB had not performed his duties efficiently and thereby, violated provisions of Regulation 10(m) of CBLR, 2018. Regulation 10 (n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (lEC) 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.

"12. Clause (e) of the aforesaid Regulation requires exercise of due diligence by the CHA regarding such information which he may give to his client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo. Clause (l) requires that all documents submitted, such as bills of entry and shipping bills delivered etc. reflect the name of the importer/exporter and the name of the CHA prominently at the top of such documents. The aforesaid clauses do not obligate the CHA to look into such information which may be made available to it from the exporter/importer. The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through customs house and in that process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs house area. What is noteworthy is that the IE Code of the exporter M/s H.M. Impex was mentioned in the shipping bills, this itself reflects that before the grant of said IE Code, the background check of the said importer/exporter had been undertaken by the customs authorities, therefore, there was no doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of the IE Code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there is a presumption that an appropriate background check in this regard i.e. KYC etc. would have been done by the customs authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the goods mentioned in the shipping bills did not reflect the truth of the consignment sought to be exported. In the absence of such knowledge, there cannot be any mens rea attributed to the appellant or its proprietor. Whatever may be the value of the goods, in the present case, simply because upon inspection of the goods they did not corroborate with what was declared in the shipping bills, cannot be deemed as mis- declaration by the CHA because the said document was filed on the basis of information provided to it by M/s H.M. Impex, which had already been granted an IE Code by the DGFT. The grant of the IE Code presupposes a verification of facts etc. made in such application with respect to the concern or entity. If the grant of such IE Code to a non-existent entity at the address WZ-156, Madipur, New Delhi - 63 is in doubt, then for such erroneous grant of the IE Code, the appellant cannot be faulted. The IE Code is the proof of locus standi of the exporter. The CHA is not expected to do a background check of the exporter/client who approaches it for facilitation services in export and imports. Regulation 13(e) of the CHALR 2004 requires the CHA to:"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"