Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : SKH Freight Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 50871 of 2019 [DB]
Date of Judgement/Order : 06/11/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

SKH Freight Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

CESTAT Delhi upheld revocation of Customs Broker license on failure to make appropriate enquiries of their client and for facilitating fraudulent highly under-valued exports.

Facts- Department formed the opinion that M/s Linwood Sales Pvt. Ltd. was involved in fraudulent export under drawback scheme to avail huge undue drawback amount. The Customs Broker who facilitated the fraudulent export is M/s. SKH Freight Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Show Cause Notice was issued by DRI after completion of inquiry into the matter. This SCN has been adjudicated by the Order- in-Original. Treating the said order as offence report that the license of the appellant was suspended vide order dated 06.07.2018. The said proposal has been confirmed vide order in original No.75/2018 dated 30.11.2018. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

Conclusion- Held that it is very much on record that one Mr. Sumit Aggarwal was the mastermind behind the fraudulent highly under-valued exports. The G Card Holder of the appellant was aware about Shri Guha Sarkar to transact the fraudulent exports. Since the custom broker is responsible for all acts and means of his employees during their employment as per Regulation 13 (12) of CBLR of 2018, it was mandatory for the appellant to advice the exporter to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, else to have brought to the notice of the Dy. Commissioner Customs about the non-compliance. But neither the appellant nor his G card holder has ever brought the impugned fraud to the notice of the competent authorities. We have no reason to differ from the findings arrived at against the appellant.

Held that the appellant has failed to make the appropriate enquiries of their clients prior transacting the business in customhouse station. Hence, the findings confirming the violation of Regulation 10 (k) and 10 (n) are held sustainable.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031