Case Law Details
Bright Clearing & Carrier Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble CESTAT revoking the Customs Brokers licences of the appellants forfeiting their security deposits and further imposing penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained as Appellants have provided their best efforts to establish the genuinety of exporters and they have relied upon the documents which have been issued by Government to the exporters.
Facts: The appellants were Customs Brokers whose licences were revoked by the impugned orders under of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 and the security deposits made by them were forfeited. Penalty was also imposed on them on the ground that they had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR 2018. In the said case the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management of the CBIC analysed the data and identified risky exporters involved in execution of frauds and got verification done by the jurisdictional GST officers and identified exporters who could not be found at all physically at their registered premises. DGARM also found that exports by these exporters were handled by certain Customs Brokers including the appellants herein and reported them to the respective Commissionerates including the Respondent herein. The Respondent issued Show Cause Notices to the appellants and appointed Inquiry officers. After considering the replies to the SCNs and the inquiry reports, the Commissioner passed impugned orders holding that the appellants had violated Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR.
The appellant submitted about responsibility of the Customs Broker that the responsibility is fulfilled if the Customs broker obtains at least two KYC documents and it is not the responsibility of the Customs Broker to physically inspect the premises of each of its clients to ensure that it is operating from that address. He submits that it is far too onerous for the Customs Broker to fulfil such a responsibility.
The Hon’ble CESTAT observed that verification of certificates part of the obligation under Regulation 10(n) on the Customs Broker is fully satisfied as long as it satisfies itself that the IEC and the GSTIN were, indeed issued by the concerned officers. This can be done through online verification, comparing with the original documents, etc. and does not require an investigation into the documents by the Customs Broker. The presumption is that a certificate or registration issued by an officer or purported to have been issued by an officer was correctly issued. The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper. Further, it was observed that the onus on the Customs Broker cannot, therefore, extend to verifying that the officers have issued the certificate or registration correctly. However, the Customs Broker cannot sit in judgment over the certificate or registration issued by a Government officer so long as it is valid. In these cases, there is no doubt or evidence that the IEC and the GSTIN were issued by the officers. So, there is no violation as far as the documents are concerned.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
