The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) held that Regulation 10 (n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018(CBLR) doesn’t mandate customs broker to physically ascertain the correctness of address given in import detail. The bench observed that the Department itself fails to take note of the alleged non-existent address, it cannot shoot off the blame onto the Customs Broker.
M/s Sinha Shipping Agency, the appellant who is a Customs Broker, has filed the impugned appeal for action initiated against them vide the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admn), Kolkata, under the provisions of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
The appellant undertook an import assignment, for which, authorization was duly received by them. One person named Sandip Agarwal, who introduced himself as a Chartered Accountant of the importer’s firm, supplied the import documents authorization of the importer, which was received through e-mail/courier.
It was submitted that the said KYC documents were duly verified by them with the Bank in consequence with the condition stipulated by CBEC Circular No.09/2010-Cus dated 08.04.2010. The present import of “Gambier” was made by one Delhi-based importer, M/s SGW Enterprises.
The import consignments (all four) were duly examined 100% and no mis-declaration was found/suspected. Consequently, in certain investigations initiated by the Department based on assessment, it was found that the address of the importing firm, furnished as indicated in the authorization, was incorrect since it was at variance with that indicated on the IEC copy.
A show-cause notice came to be issued to the appellant for violation of Regulations 10 (d), 10 (m) and 10 (n) of the CBLR, 2018. After due process of law, the present adjudication order has been passed by the Commissioner.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr Rajeev Tandon, Member (Technical) observed that the appellants filed the Bill of Entry in duly bonafide discharge of their functions as a Customs Broker and there is nothing on record to implicate them in any other business interest or relationship between the appellant and the importer other than as of Customs Broker.
The inherent contradiction made by the Department is self-evident, when the department with all the wherewithal at its command, itself fails to take note of the alleged non-existent address, it cannot shoot off the blame for a similar lapse, if any, onto the Customs Broker.
The Tribunal held that no action as initiated in the present matter, was made out in the first place. The order of the adjudicating authority is certainly without a toehold of legitimacy and the CESTAT set aside the order of revocation of Customs Broker Licence and restores the same, forthwith.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
