Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On the other hand, the Ld. AC (AR) Shri B. Balamurugan, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. He submits that the CHA does not know the importer and as has been decided by the Board to put in place the Know Your Customer (KYC) guidelines for CHAs so that the importers/exporters who indulge in fraudulent activities cannot misuse the export promotion schemes, fraudulent availment of export incentives and duty evasion. Accordingly, Regulation 13 of the CHALR, 2004 has been suitably amended to provide certain obligations on the CHA to verify the antecedent, correctness of import-export code number (IEC), identity and functioning of his clients in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authenticate documents, data and information. It would also be obligatory for the client/customer to furnish to the CHA a photograph of himself/herself in the case of an individual and those of the authorized signatory in respect of other forms of organizations such as firms/companies etc. and in proof of address, any two documents as listed in the annexure. He further submitted that the bill was given to unauthorized person. After the initial investigation, the behavior of the CHA shows that they were aware of the contents in the container. It was further alleged that the CHA firm has gone hand in glove with the importer M/s. J.R. Smelters Pvt. Ltd., by deciding to overlook the obvious deficiencies and allowing the importer to attempt import of the mis-declared items. He further argued that the Ld. Commissioner has given a detailed reasoning in holding that the appellant CHA is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of his employees. It was for the CHA to have an effective supervision over the conduct of the employees in the transaction of business. He further submits that the appellant failed to fulfill the following obligations under CHALR, 2004 in violation of the said Regulations: