Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The Appellant, by a letter dated January 02, 2020, submitted a detailed reply stating, inter alia,:

(i) The Appellant and the G-Card holder had before filing the shipping bill, fulfilled the "know your customer"5 norms by asking for the documents mentioned in Regulation 10 (n).

The partnership deeds, service tax registration, voter cards, PAN card and Importer Exporter Code were submitted and the addresses of the firms were available in the Importer Exporter Code Certificates.

(iii) It was not the duty of the Appellant to verify the addresses of the exporters by personally visiting the

5. KYC C/50863/2020 addresses given in the export documents or in the Importer Exporter Code or in the registration certificates.

(iv) Evidence of over valuation was not in the knowledge of the Appellant and hence there was no question of advising the client. As per the practice, the address and verification of the Importer Exporter Code number, GST number and identity of the client are done by taking all the KYC norm documents prescribed in Circular No. 9 of 2010 dated April 8, 2010. The bank verifies the correctness of the address of the exporters by following the KYC norms verification. Hence, it is not correct to allege that the Appellant had violated Regulation 10(e) of the Licensing Regulations. The Appellant had exercised proper supervision over the conduct of the G-Card holder and the G-Card holder had also discharged his duty as per the Licensing Regulations. There was no act or omission on the part of the G-Card holder.

(emphasis supplied)

27. It is clear from the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court that there is no obligation on the Customs House Agent to look into the information made available by the exporter/exporter. The Customs House Agent is merely a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through Customs House and he is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. When the Importer/Exporter Code Number was provided and before this code was issued a background check of the said importer/exporter is C/50863/2020 undertaken by the Customs Authority, there should be no doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be too onerous to expect a Customs House Agent to inquire into what is stated in the documents when there is a presumption that an appropriate background check is done by the Customs Authorities. In fact, the grant of Importer/Exporter Code Number is a proof regarding verification of facts and if the grant of such a code number to an entity at the address mentioned is in doubt, then for such erroneous grant of the Importer/Exporter Code Number, the Appellant cannot be faulted.

C/50863/2020 "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."