Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It was contended by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the adjudicating authority responsible for show cause notice, in initiating action against the goods, the exporter and other persons, including the power-of-attorney holder, under Customs Act, 1962, did not find sufficient reason to charge them with penalty implying that nothing adverse was noticed about their role. Further drawing our attention to the authority letter, 'know your customer (KYC)' form, certificate of 'importer-exporter code (IEC)', registration-cum-membership card of APEDA and other identification records, Learned Counsel intimated that the licencing authority had incorrectly concluded that the appellant had not complied with obligation as customs broker.

6. Similarly, for the violation of Regulation 11(n), the adjudicating authority has observed that the Customs broker did not verify the antecedents, correctness of the IEC number, identity of his client and the declared address etc. We again find no merit in the charge of the Revenue inasmuch as that IEC number has been found to be correct as also the address of the importer. Further, all the importers have joined in the investigations and have given their statements. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that the Customs Broker has not adhered to KYC norms.' and on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Customs v. Shiva Khurana [2019 (367) ELT 550 (Del)] holding that '7. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The reference to the verification of "antecedents and correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) Number" and the identity of the concerned exporter/importer, in the opinion of this Court is to be read in the context of the CHA's duty as a mere agent rather than as a Revenue official who is empowered to investigate and enquire into the veracity of the statement made orally or in a document. If one interprets Regulation 13(o) reasonably in the light of what the CHA is expected to do, in the normal course, the duty cast is merely to satisfy itself as to whether the importer or exporter in fact is reflected in the list of the authorized exporters or importers and possesses the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) Number. As to whether in reality, such exporters in the given case exist or have shifted or are irregular in their dealings in any manner (in relation to the particular transaction of export), can hardly be the subject matter of "due diligence" expected of such agent unless there are any factors which ought to have C/85322/2022 alerted it to make further inquiry. There is nothing in the Regulations nor in the Customs Act which can cast such a higher responsibility as are sought to be urged by the Revenue. In other words, in the absence of any indication that the CHA concerned was complicit in the facts of a particular case, it cannot ordinarily be held liable.' and in KVS Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, New Delhi [2019 (365) ELT 392 (Del)] holding that '4. The Court is of the opinion that there is some merits as far as the appellant's argument is concerned. In this case the Customs Authorities have not held that any clandestine material was brought or that the goods were misdeclared or the contraband was the subject matter of the Bill of Entry in question. The role of the appellant was merely one of a facilitator. There is no material on record to show that the KYC documents were fraudulent or incorrect or in any manner irregular. In these circumstances, to expect the CB holder to carry out further investigations and independent inquiry not only about the existence of importing firm but also about its real owner is beyond the mandate of the law.'