Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(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; CBLR DGARM CBIC SCN

4. Since this case requires deciding the scope of Regulation 10(n) and the extent of responsibility of the Customs Broker under it, we proceed to examine this issue before dealing with the specifics of this case. According to the learned consultant for the appellants, this responsibility is fulfilled if the Customs broker obtains at least two KYC documents and it is not the responsibility of the Customs Broker to physically inspect the premises of each of its clients to ensure that it is operating from that address. He submits that it is far too onerous for the Customs Broker to fulfil such a responsibility. He relies on the following decisions:

a) Commissioner of Customs versus K M Ganatra &Co8
b) Baraskar Brothers versus Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai9
c) Sky Sea Services versus Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai10 2017(354) ELT 447(Del) 2019 (367)ELT 550 (Del) 2016(332) ELT 15(SC) 2009(244) ELT 562(Tri-Mumbai)
d) Jasjeet Singh Marwah versus Union Of India and others11

6. We have considered the submissions on both sides. 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 obligation can be broken down as follows:

Thus the allegation of violation of Regulation 13(e) is sustainable. Further Regulation 13(o) ibid states as under:

2017 (346) ELT 471 (Tri- Del) ―A Custom House Agent shall verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) Number, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information.
(ii) Present and Permanent address (iv) Driving licence, (v) Bank account statement in full, complete
(vi) Ration card and correct Note : Any two of the documents listed above, which provides client/ customer information to the satisfaction of the CHA will suffice. Thus the appellant was required to inter alia verify present and permanent address in full, complete and correct which the appellant did not do. Merely because the appellant obtained documents as per Column 4 of the above table does not tantamount to fulfilment of requirement of Column 3 relating to features to be verified because if that was so, then there was no need to have Column 3. As seen from Regulation 13(o) quoted above, the Customs House Agent is obligated to inter alia verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code, identity of the importer and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The appellant has not even claimed that it had ever verified the existence of the importer at the given address. Obviously, the appellant failed to fulfil the requirement of Regulation 13(o) ibid.