Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. In the same vein, it would be relevant to extract Regulation 10(n) which reads as follows:

"Regulation 10(n).

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;"

16. In this regard, the decision of the learned CESTAT goes as under:

"8.3.1 We observe that there is no allegation of the department that the IEC (Importer Exporter Code) for the importers in whose name the Bills of Entry were filed by appellant/CHA were incorrect. The goods and service tax identification number GSTIN has also not been admitted to be the correct number of the said importers. Even the importers are not denied to be functioning at the declared addresses. Once the IEC and GSTIN is found to have been genuine even the importers were found existing at the declared addresses, mere allegation that some other person was importing goods in the name of the importers whose names were mentioned in the Bills of Entry does not render the identity of the importer as doubtful especially when there is an apparent arrangement, with mutual consent between the importer and the said other person, the beneficial owner of the imported goods. 8.3.2 There has been an amendment in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 which defines importer. After the said amendment not only the owner of the imported goods is importer but even a beneficial owner of such goods is also defined as importer. From the facts and the circumstances above, we observe Shri Yusuf Pardawala would have been the beneficial owner of the goods. Hence, he equally is an importer but the goods owned by him have been imported by a validly existing importing firm. The appellant herein was transacting the business of those validly existing firms that too under the authority of the owner of said companies for getting clearances of those goods. Hence, we hold that the allegations about the wrong identity of the client of appellant are absolutely baseless. Thus, we hold that appellant/CHA had no reason to declare that Shri Sidharth Sharma was not the importer. Otherwise also when statute itself does not distinguish between the owner of the goods and person who is the importer, CHA has no reason nor any necessity to take a different position and to declare the same to the competent authority. As such we do not find any violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 by the appellant.