Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: import export code number in A B Paul And Company vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai - ... on 2 June, 2023Matching Fragments
APPEARANCE:
Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ram Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR S. K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO: A / 85907 /2023 DATE OF HEARING: 05/12/2022 DATE OF DECISION: 02/06/2023 PER: C J MATHEW Under consideration in this appeal of M/s A B Paul & Company, (holder of customs broker licence no. 11/543 issued under C/86451/2022 Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984), against order1 of Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, Mumbai, is their plea that, notwithstanding shipping bills having been filed to enable 14 entities in export of 'cut and polished diamonds' o which only four alleged to be existing, their role in the narrative did not justify revoking of customs broker licence, along with forfeiture of security deposit, and further imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under regulation 18 of Customs House Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Besides the statement of several persons whose identity had been allegedly misused to secure 'importer exporter code (IEC)' numbers and claimed to have nothing to do with the consignments., those of the representatives, including the proprietor and manager, of the appellant herein had been relied upon to impose the detriments on the appellant, formed the basis for initiating proceedings mandated by regulation 17 of Customs House Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
6. The cavil about the shipments is that sale proceeds of exports were not received through formal banking channels and that effecting such exports, nominally through holders of 'importer-exporter code (IEC)' numbers, enabled diversion of sale proceeds received from C/86451/2022 abroad. On the other hand, the primary submissions of the customs broker is that, as far as 'cut and polished diamonds' are concerned, their responsibility is restricted with the goods, in accordance with prevailing special procedure, are personally handed over to customs officers for assessment and that the time-lines in Customs House Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, prescribed for completion of each stage of proceedings under regulation 17 therein, have not been adhered which remained untenable even within the framework laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Principal Commr. Of Cus. (General), Mumbai v. Unison Clearing P Ltd [2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom).
8. The licensing authority has then gone on to examine each of the C/86451/2022 charges individually and it would appear that, in relation to some of those, the appellant herein had sought cross-examination which was denied thus '15. In respect of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018, it has been alleged that the CB did not 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.