Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Customs Appeal No. 52789 of 2019 [DB] 3.2 It is further submitted that the appellant otherwise had filed Bills of Entry based on the documents as were provided to him by the importers. The CB was not at all aware of any alleged manipulation of import invoices at any stage of clearance of the goods as such there is no violation under 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 as is alleged against the appellant. The authorizations from each of the importers involved in the present case were duly obtained by the appellant. The same has not been denied except that some invoices are alleged to have not been received directly from the importing firms. The appellant had otherwise advised all the importers to comply with all customs acts and rules and regulations. It is not the case of the department that Importer Exporter Code (IEC) was incorrect. There is no evidence on record to prove that appellant had any personal or pecuniary interest in the impugned imports. It is further submitted that there was no role of the appellant in undervaluation of the goods as such the decision of revoking his CB license is highly unjustified and unreasonable. Learned Counsel also submitted that the cross- examination of Shri Sidharth Sharma has not been taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority below.Learned Counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bharat Overseas Communicators Vs. Commr. Of Cus. (General), Mumbai reported as 2007 (209) E.L.T. (Tri.- Mumbai) and M/s. R.S. Kandalkar & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported as 2014 (299) E.L.T. 360 (Tri.-Mumbai).The order under challenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed.

Customs Appeal No. 52789 of 2019 [DB] We observe that the basic allegation against the appellant/Customs Broker are that he was in connivance with Shri Yusuf Pardawala, the beneficiary of imported goods and Shri Sidharth Sharma, the Director of three importing firms and was very much aware that the Bills of Entry for clearanceof consignments were filed for the companies controlled by Shri Sidharth Sharma despite the consignments belonged to Shri Yusuf Pardawala. The appellant is specifically alleged to have used Import Export Code (hereinafter referred as IEC) of importer firms i.e. M/s. Maggie Marketing Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Safebot Technologies Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Honeywell Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Emrick Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and facilitated customs clearance of consignments for Shri Yusuf Pardawala against some monetary consideration on commission basis. Being a Customs Broker, he was required to verify the IEC. Based on these allegations that violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 has been confirmed against appellant vide the impugned order under challenge. We proceed to adjudicate the alleged violations separately as follows:

8.3 The violation of Regulation 10(n).

Regulation 10(n) reads as follows:

10(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; 8.3.1 We observe that there is no allegation of the department that the IEC (Importer Exporter Code) for the importers in whose name the Bills of Entry were filed by appellant/CHA were incorrect.