Document Fragment View

Matching 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;"

6.3. We find that the Commissioner of Customs on the basis of the conclusions arrived in the impugned order, that the appellants CB did not meet the importer/IEC holder; that the signature of importer in GATT valuation declaration did not tally with that of the signature on the authority letter issued to the appellants, defeating the whole purpose of obtaining authorization for authenticating that the appellants CB are acting on behalf of genuine importer; that the appellants had obtained all documents through a logistics operator as intermediary and failed to act in a vigilance manner leading to failure to perform their duties as CB efficiently, has held that the CB had violated the provisions of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(f) ibid. Similarly, on the account of the appellants CB had limited knowledge regarding valuation of imported goods; and that they did not take any effort C/86216/2020 to ascertain the genuineness of the importer through authentic and reliable means as per CBLR, 2018, had held that the appellants CB had violated Regulations 10(n) ibid. It is also stated in the impugned order that the delay in conclusion of inquiry proceedings had occurred due to unavoidable administrative reasons and it cannot be fatal to outcome of inquiry and it cannot neutralize the acts of omission and commission of already committed by the appellants CB.
12

C/86216/2020 10.1. We find from the records, that the appellants CB had obtained the KYC documents from the importer vide their letter dated 15.05.2016 and verified the existence of the importer through the certificate of Importer-Exporter Code issued by the Ministry of Commerce, DGFT indicating the name of the importer along with address, name of the partner; letter of Bank of India certifying the current account held by importer with their bank and Permanent Account Number (PAN) card of the importer. However, the Commissioner of Customs had concluded in the impugned order that the appellants CB has not been careful and not diligent in undertaking the KYC of the background of importer and accepted documents.

guidelines for CHAs so that they are not used intentionally or unintentionally by importers/exporters who indulge in fraudulent activities. Accordingly, Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004, has been suitably amended to provide that certain obligations on the CHAs to verify the antecedent, correctness of Import Export Code (IEC) Number, identity of his client and the functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. In this regard, a detailed guideline on the list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client/customer is enclosed in the Annexure. 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 authorised signatory in respect of other forms of organizations such as company/trusts etc., and any two of the listed documents in the annexure.

14.1. The records of the case indicate that the appellants had obtained a written authorization letter dated 15.05.2016 from the importer M/s V.B. Imports, Thane mentioning that they authorize the appellants for clearance of import/export consignment on their behalf from Customs JNPT/Nhava Sheva/Mumbai. The importers also gave a declaration that they would be responsible for any discrepancy or mis-declaration found in their documents or goods, in the said authorization letter to the appellants. The letter also enclosed self-certified copies of Import Export Code Number (IEC) of importer, KYC documents and shipment documents. The conclusion of the Commissioner of Customs (General) in respect of sub-regulation 10(a) ibid is on the basis of the statement dated 20.05.2017 given by Shri Naresh Jay Kumar Udeshi, Proprietor of appellants CB firm, which state that on being shown the GATT declaration annexed with the docket of B/E No.6447009 dated 22.08.2006 he stated that the signature of the importer in the GATT value declaration did not tally with that in the authorization letter obtained by the appellants. Thus, on this basis the Commissioner of Customs (General) had held that the authorization is null and void, thereby violating the obligation under sub-regulation 10(a) ibid. It is also on record that Shri Soni Bipin Damodar Jinadra, IEC holder of M/s V.B. Exports, Thane had let out his IEC to various persons such as S/Shri. Mohan Singh Fartiyal alias Mannu Bhai, Deepak Sharma, for monetary benefits. However, these facts were brought to fore only during detailed investigation of the case conducted subsequently by the Customs APU, R&I Division. Hence, at the relevant time of imports under two B/Es, the appellants were not aware of this.