Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. To examine the contravention of Regulation 10(n) by the appellant, the provisions are quoted as :

"Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2013 - Obligation of Customs Broker. A Customs Broker shall -

(n) 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;"

In terms of Regulation 10(n), 'CB' is obliged to verify, identify and functioning of client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents data or information. In this regard, CBIC has issued Circular No. 09/2010 - Customs dated 8.04.2010 whereby, "Know Your Customer (KYC)" guidelines have been issued to CHAs/CB and list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client/customer have been provided, which requires the CB to verify the following features:

9. Reliance is placed on the observations made by the Tribunal in the case of Mauli Worldwide Logistics vs Commissioner of Customs (supra):-

"18. 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), Driving Licence (issued by the Transport Department), Voter ID (issued by the Election Commission). 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 the issue of these documents and as a Customs Broker to sit in judgment over the decisions of these officers. If the verification reports are true and none of the exporters existed at their premises, the irresistible conclusion is that all these officers of various departments have been either extremely careless or were operating under flawed systems which allowed documents to be issued to non-existing businesses.

21. 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 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).

10. In the case of Perfect Cargo & Logistics (supra), this Tribunal noted the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shiv Khurana Manu 7 as under:-

"33. The Delhi High Court in Shiva Khurana had an occasion to examine the provisions of Regulation 13(o) of the 2004 Regulations, which Regulation is similar to Regulation 10(n) of the Licensing Regulations, and the relevant observations are as follows:

CUSSA 45/2017 dated 14.01.2019 "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 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."