Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"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 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

9|Page C/75133/2022 Broker to discharge his duties as the Custom Broker utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay. The impugned order holds that the appellant had never communicated with the importer and did not verify the registered address as mentioned in KYC form of the importer. The impugned order. The impugned order also notices that the appellant had not verified the financial background of the importer. It could not be the responsibility of Custom Broker to actually physically verify the address of the importers or the financial background of the importer. The appellants have argued that the responsibility cast on them is to do whatever verification is possible on the basis of the documents like IEC Code, GST number, pan number etc., The impugned order holds that the Custom Broker failed to follow due diligence before accepting the custom clearance work of the importers. The next charge on the appellant is that he failed to follow the Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 which requires the Custom Broker to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code IEC number, GSTIN, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The impugned order holds that the appellant failed to verify the registered address as mentioned in KYC form before taking up the job as Custom Broker for clearance of the said import consignment. The appellant has claimed that the KYC documents were verified by them on the strength of the documents supplied by importer namely IEC Code, Adhar Card, Trade Licence, Bank Details, IFSC Code with importer name, Father's name and full address with photo fixed on KYC form. The impugned order does not accept this defence and still upholds the suspension order relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. M. Gantra& Co. in Civil Appeal No. 2940 of 2008. Wherein following has been observed.