Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) False Representation of Office Premises: The investigation revealed that the office premises of M/s Vijender Singh were misrepresented as a Pan Shop. This misrepresentation not only raises suspicions about the legitimacy of the customs broker but also suggests a deliberate attempt to conceal their activities. Shri Hardasani Haresh Jamiatrai's statement further corroborates the fraudulent nature of the operation.
(iii) Violation of Customs Act, 1962: Custom Broker's failure to perform his duties as specified under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, directly contravenes Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962. By not verifying the correctness of Importer- Exporter Code (IEC) numbers, Goods and Service Tax Identification Numbers (GSTIN), and the identity and functioning of clients at declared addresses, Pol facilitated fraudulent exports aimed at claiming ineligible IGST refund amounts.

7. Foremost we peruse the said legal provisions:

Regulation 10(a): 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 Regulation 10(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 haggage. Regulation 10 (n): 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:

(iii) Regulation 10(n): According to this regulation, a Customs Broker must verify the correctness of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of the client, and functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, and authentic documents. The Customs Broker in this case failed to verify the addresses and genuineness of the exporters, as admitted by Shri Shashikant Pol.

(iv) Regulation 10(o): This regulation requires a Customs Broker to inform any change of postal address, telephone number, email, etc., to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs of all Customs Stations. The Customs Broker in this case failed to fulfill this obligation, as indicated by discrepancies regarding the office premises in Mumbai.

9.2 The G-card holder Shri Shashikant Maruti Pol, acknowledged that he got the Power of Attorney of M/s. Vijender Singh in the year 2012. He had done the Customs clearance of exports done by M/s.

Trivano International (IEC-3315900973), M/s. Artco India (IEC- 2908000091), M/s. Kalyani Enterprises (IEC-AJQPJ2299F) amd M/s. Intercraft International (IEC-2906003239). The customs clearance works of these exporters were given by Shri Sitaram Jadhav, who introduced himself as a forwarder and he personally submitted the documents like invoices, packing list etc. he did not receive any test report of the specifications of goods. He did not verify the authority of Shri Sitaram Jadhav regarding the export of all above said goods having description 'articles made of cement concrete specially designed customs made UV radiation and IR radiation heavy cooling properties masonary bricks. He did not verify the addresses and genuineness of all these exporters. He stated that he would submit KYC documents of all these 04 exporters received from Shri Sitaram Jadhav within 03 days but failed to submit the same. He did not know any person other than Shri Sitaram Jadhav regarding the Customs Appeal No. 51248 of 2022 [DB] export of the above said goods to UAE. He accepted that he had not fulfilled the obligations of Customs Broker in the verification/confirmation/genuineness of these above exporters. 9.3 On checking of IEC of M/s. Della Enterprises it was found to be a dummy firm created in the name of Shri Veerchand Kisturchand Jain. The IEC holder Shri Veerchand Kisturchand Jain has denied any connection with M/s. Della Enterprise and also denied having exported any goods. It is found that the declared premises of the exporters are fake and also no business activities were found in the places of business addresses provided in GSTIN. Persons involved exporting these consignments were also found to be involved in several cases of commercial fraud in the past. Hence it is clear on record that a group of syndicate with the said bogus IECs has availed ineligible IGST refund on the basis of bogus invoices, wherein fact remains is that no IGST had been paid to the exchequer in respect of such invoices. The CHA in connivance of other exported the goods on the name of such IEC's and have syphoned the IGST refund amount received into the account of the fictitious exporter, in respect of such exports. The bogus IECs' were used to hide the identity of the actual beneficiary of such fraudulent activity and to escape detection of their direct involvement by the Customs authority. As per Rule 12 of Foreign Trade Regulation Rules 1993 "any person using someone else's Importer-Exporter Code shall be held liable for violation of this rule and shall accordingly be liable for penalty under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the rule.