A Customs Broker has filed various Bill of Entries of different IEC holders and cleared LED TV parts. DRI has investigated the issue of import of parts of LED TV with the perception that these parts are imported by a group of persons and that these parts should be assessed as complete LED TV. Customs Broker did not dealt with importers directly and one middlemen brought this business and Customs broker has raised invoice against middlemen and not against importers. The Customs department revoked licence, forfeited security deposit and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- and Customs broker appealed to CESTAT.
Let us see important observations of CESTAT as follows ;
Customs Brokers advocate has submitted that the Commissioner
has failed to apply the ratio of the decision in the case of HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi
[2016(338) ELT 725 (Tri. Del.)] wherein it has been held that “ customs broker
need not meet the importer and their premises need not be verified physically”
Learned counsel also cited the decision of Kunal Travels
(Cargo) Vs. CC (I&G), IGI Airport, New Delhi [2017(354) ELT 447 (Del.)]
wherein it has been clarified that “it is onerous to expect CHA to inquire into
and verify genuineness of IE code given by client for each import/export and that
if goods did not corroborate with declaration in shipping bills, it cannot be
deemed to be misdeclaration by CHA”
Learned counsel also submitted that in plethora of cases, the
Tribunal has held that revocation of licence is too harsh punishment which will
deprive them of their livelihood and for this he relied upon the following
decisions:-
i. Sadanand Chaudhary Vs. CC(G), New Delhi [2018(363) ELT
1018 (Tri. Del.)]
ii. Service Bureau Vs. CC, New Delhi [2018(363) ELT 949 (Tri.
Del.)]
iii. Shri Manjunatha Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore
[Final Order No.21867-21868/2018 dt. 11/12/2018 by CESTAT, Bangalore]
Further we find that in the present case there are serious
allegations against the Customs Broker regarding the violation of various
Regulations as to not properly authorized by the importer and not advised the
importer regarding the compliance of Customs Act and also not verified the IE
code, antecedents of the importer and the premises of the importer. We find
that in the impugned order, the Commissioner has considered each and every
submission raised by the appellant and has dealt with the same.
Hence, it is pertinent to reproduce the finding of the
Commissioner ;
Para 22. The Customs Broker has been receiving documents of
multiple IECs from the same persons, the cargo imported by these multiple IEC
is the almost the same. The supplier of the goods is same. The modus operandi
is so obvious that the TVs are being imported in SKD condition. The Customs
Broker was aware of the fact that duty was being paid from the account of
middlemen and not from importer's account. The documents are being forwarded
from the same email account in respect of all importers. These are all enough
indications that there is syndicate working in import of TVs in SKD conditions
which were in the knowledge of the CB. These facts also indicate complicity of
the CB in the offence of duty evasion carried out by fraudsters. The CB not
only violated all the above provisions of Regulations, but also embroiled
himself in the scheme of the duty evasion. Thus, the CB apart from violating
the provisions under the Regulations have also indulged in misconduct. Such
misconduct calls for exemplary punishment.
It is also clear from the evidence that the identity of the
importer was not verified by the CB. It is also a fact that IEC holders have
stated that they were not aware of any imports by them. We also find that CB
actually knowing the correct facts, chose to keep quiet and continued to make
clearances which were being imported by 3rd parties and not by the IEC holders.
We are of the considered view that CB has violated the
Regulations as alleged in the show-cause notice and are guilty of gross
negligence in performance of their duties as Customs Broker.
We are of the view that revocation of Customs Broker licence
is a harsh punishment which will deprive the appellant from their livelihood
along with livelihood of all those people working with them.
Hence by following the ratios in the cases of Sadanand
Chaudhary and Shri Manjunatha Shipping Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, we take a lenient
view and set aside the revocation but we uphold the forfeiture of security
deposit as well as the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on the CB.
Customs Broker VERSUS C. C-BANGALORE-CUS, CESTAT, BANGALORE, Order
pronounced on 12/06/2020
Take away for readers : Forming Illegal syndication and
imports in SKD condition by various IEC holders to evade Customs duty / to
circumvent import restrictions is a serious offence. CB should have strict
vigil and needless to say, should have proper KYC documents.
Please Visit :https://eximblogs.blogspot.com/
www.eximblogs.com
#Customs Law Quick Bites-42
No comments:
Post a Comment