Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The limited challenge in the present appeal is to the violation of the provisions of Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 by the appellant, which reads as:-

"Regulation11(n) verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, identity of hisclie nt and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information;"

The aforesaid provision casts an obligation on the Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IEC number, identity of his client and his functioning at the declared address. On investigation, officers of the Customs found that the IEC holder, Shri Praveen Singh Patwal had his office at the given address during the period from 1 April 2010 to May 2012. Therefore, it implies that when the appellant undertook the work of the said IEC holder in March 2013, he was no more operating from that address and as the appellant failed to verify the correct address of the IEC holder at the relevant period, he contravened the provisions of Regulation 11(n). We also find that this was not the solitary incident rather as per the statement of the Customs Broker, he had cleared around 60 to 70 consignments in the past on behalf of the importer and yet failed to verify the functioning of the importer at the declared address. Since the importer firm was found to be non-existent at the given address, the appellant is guilty of violating the obligation in terms of Regulation 11(n) and hence is liable to be penalised.

9. We also find that the appellant was aware that IEC did not belong to Shri Rajesh Bansal rather he was using the IEC of another person i.e. Shri Praveen Singh Patwal of M/s Royal International. As per the statement of Shri Narender Narula, the proprietor of the appellant company, Mr. Rajesh Bansal informed him that they intend to import mobiles and mobile accessories in the name of M/s Royal International which was sufficient to infer that Shri Rajesh Bansal was not the owner of the IEC but the appellant failed to verify the correctness of IEC number. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that the manner in which Shri Bansal was dealing with the appellant in relation to the imports for all practical purposes, he was the actual importer and Shri Praveen Singh Patwal was merely a dummy IEC holder. He categorically stated that whenever the consignment arrived, the documents were sent to him by Shri Rajesh Bansal or else his field boy used to go to the office of Shri Rajesh Bansal at Tip Top Market, Karol Bagh to collect the documents. More important was that after customs clearance, the goods used to go to the premises of Shri Rajesh Bansal at Karol Bagh is a pertinent factor which could not have been ignored by the appellant. Similarly, the payments used to be made by Shri Rajesh Bansal or Sunil Badlani. The entire working was within the knowledge of the appellant and the fact that this modus-operandi was followed in the past clearances of around 60-70 consignments clearly reflects connivance on the part of the appellant. In this regard, we would like to refer to the decision in Bhaskar Logistic Services Private Limited versus Union of India - 2016 (340) ELT 17 (PAT), the Patna High Court emphasized that a person, who imports goods must hold a valid Importer-Exporter Code Number, observing as under:-

"31. Thus, the importer/exporter is a person who imports or exports goods on his own account and such person must have his own account number in his name as granted by the Director General of Foreign Trade and is under obligation to declare it to the Customs in terms of Rule 12 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. It is the legislative intent that only one Importer- Exporter Code is allowed against one Permanent Account Number (PAN) and no person could import or export without IEC. If the actual importer or exporter is not having his own IEC, he could be able to circumvent the obligation imposed under Customs Act or under any other law, for the time being in force."