Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: import export code number in Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi ... vs Crm Logistics Pvt Ltd on 3 December, 2021Matching 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;
11. We now proceed to examine the above three cases which formed the basis of the SCN and the impugned order and the arguments on both sides with respect to each of the cases. M/s. Duoflex Expo India -RUD 2
(a) that the exporter was found to be non-existent at the registered premises which were registered in December 2018; and
(b) the ITC (input-tax credit under GST) is not admissible to the exporter.
17. As far as the admissibility of ITC is concerned, nothing in the CBLR, 2018, even remotely suggests that it is the responsibility of the Customs Broker to ensure its admissibility or that if inadmissible ITC is taken and thereafter a refund of it is claimed, the Customs Broker is responsible. As per the CGST/IGST/SGST Act, the assessee takes ITC and the officers can verify and if necessary, take appropriate action. The Customs Broker has no locus standi or power to verify the ITC taken. The Customs Broker is not an officer with the power to verify the ITC. Therefore, for any ITC wrongly taken by any assessee, the Customs Broker is in no way responsible. As far as the existence of the exporter at the registered premises is concerned, 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, it is not for the Customs Broker to sit in judgment over such a certificate. The Customs Broker cannot be faulted for trusting the certificates issued by a government officer. It is a different matter if documents were not authentic and were either forged by the Customs Broker or the Customs Broker had reason to believe that the documents submitted to him were forged. It has been held by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Kunal Travels7 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)." 2017 (3) TMI 1494- Delhi High Court
30. To sum up, the only allegation against the appellant is that it violated Regulation 10 (n) which obligates 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. While a large number of exporters were listed in the Table in the SCN, there were only three verification reports which formed the Relied Upon Documents (RUD 2, RUD 3 and RUD4). Of these RUD 3 says that the officers have not conducted any physical verification. RUD 4 confirms that the exporter was operating from the place. Neither of these supports the case of the Revenue. In respect of these two RUDs, the report of the officers is that the exporter had taken ineligible ITC, which, even if found true, cannot be held against the appellant as the Customs Broker has neither any authority nor any responsibility to ensure that the exporter had taken ITC properly or that the exporter's suppliers exist at their registered premises.