Rupali Logistics Clearing & Forwarding P Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
Facts & findings in revoking custom broker license did not match provision: CESTAT set aside order
Order passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), is under challenge in the present appeal who revoked custom broker license. He observed that appellant furnished fake and bogus bills of purchase from purported buyers other than actual suppliers in connection with the export of overvalued goods to claim ineligible drawback. The enquiry authority held that the charges framed under regulation 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 stood proved and hence visited the appellant.
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the investigation had not established that the exporter did not exist and their dealing with third party, was in breach of the Regulations and appellant was exporter within the meaning of section 2(2).
Finally, CESTAT have held that
(a) Regarding breach of regulation 10(d), the portion of transactions prior to entering the consignments for export and filing of shipping bill does not come within the purview of activities for which licence has been issued and hence there is no allegation that any part of the process undertaken on behalf of the exporter by the appellant had involved breach of the provisions of Customs Act.
(b) Regarding breach of regulation 10(e), this allegation may be levelled only in circumstances in which the importer/exporter is found to have been innocently led to breach of statutory compliance in any transaction and such circumstance is brought to the attention of the licencing authority. There is no allegation, nor any suggestion from the importer/exporter, that incorrect information has been imparted which led to acts of omission and commission on their part. Hence, provision was wrongly invoked.
(c) Regarding breach of regulation 10(f), there is nothing on record that the appellant had withheld anything from their clients. Breach of this obligation has been erected on the imputation of incorrect information having been furnished in the declaration. It is matter of evidence that the incorrect declaration was attributable to failure on the part of the customs broker to provide any relevant order or instruction withheld from the client.
(d) Regarding breach of regulation 10(n), it appears that customs authority shifts onus on the custom broker to discharge the obligations. It is it was for the licensing authority to show, from the facts and circumstances, that such verification had either not been undertaken or that inference of such failure is apparent therefrom. In the absence of any allegation that GSTIN or import-export code (IEC) was incorrect or that either client was fictional or did not operate at the declared address such presumption is not appropriate.
In the light of above observation, the impugned order was set-aside.
