Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a) KYC Form of CHA
b) Authority letter C/51659/2021
c) Details of Bank Account
d) Certificate of Importer Exporter Code (IEC)
e) Registration Certificate (GST REG-06)
f) PAN Card
g) Aadhar Card
h) Lease Deed
i) Partnership Deed

13. It is undisputed that the GSTIN, PAN, IEC, and other documents obtained by the appellant as a part of the KYC were genuine documents and were issued by the officers concerned. In our considered view, if the GSTIN is issued by the officers to persons who did not exist at the time of verification it could mean that the officers have issued GSTIN to non-existent firms or that they had subsequently either stopped operating from that address or that they had moved from that place and have not got the address changed. In any of these scenarios, if the GSTIN was issued by the departmental officers to such a large number of non-existent persons, it shows either the lack of any due diligence on the part of the officers or an inherently flawed system of issuing GSTIN. The appellant cannot be faulted for trusting the GSTIN issued by the department.

14. Similarly, if the importer-exporter code issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade is wrongly issued to non- existent businesses and entities, the appellant cannot be blamed for trusting the IEC issued by the DGFT. Similar is the case with respect to other documents such as PAN card (issued by the Income Tax Department). When a document is issued by a Government authority, it is reasonable to presume it to be valid. It is not open to the appellant to question these documents and it 6 IEC 7 DGFT C/51659/2021 cannot, as a Customs Broker sit in judgment over the documents issued by these officers.

15. It would have been a different matter if the documents produced by the appellant were fake or forged and were not issued by the officers. Such is not the case. In fact, the entire investigation by DGARM was initiated based on the GSTIN issued to various assessees as available in its System. Therefore, there is no possibility of the GSTIN being not issued by the department because it was extracted from its own system. Similarly, the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) is an essential field for filing any Shipping Bill in the Customs EDI system and we find it unbelievable that an IEC not issued by the DGFT would be accepted by the Customs EDI system. Since the GSTIN is PAN based, the PAN must have also been issued by the Income Tax Department.

17. We find that Regulation 10(n) 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. This responsibility does not extend to physically going to the premises of each of the exporters to ensure that they are functioning at the premises. When a Government officer issues a certificate or registration with an address to an exporter, the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for trusting the certificates so issued. It has been held by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Kunal Travels 8 that "the CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect of clearance of goods through customs house and in that process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs house area........ 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....." (emphasis supplied)."