CAUTION]Detention Notice for M/s Bharat Pumps &

tq cdpt U 2024 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 41/v HW tIE !uT-4rroor 4th FLOOR, GST BHAVAN, 41/A, SASSOON ROAD, PUNE-41100 Ph. No:020-26051839, Fax No.:020-26051849 e-mail: commr-cuspune@nic.i DIN-20240768MFOOO0222AE8 GEN/CB / 246/ 2024-CBS-O/ o COMMR-CUS–PUNE IF aT# #@r/Order-In- Original No. PUNE-QUSTOMS-OOO-COMMR-05/2024-25 / 1+ 8 $ftqvlIEra87h 3nqm ,Tit lftqT vr@ Passed by: Shri Yashodhan Wanage Commissioner, Pune Customs 3rTiW #taNIa: r2.07.2024 aTivr VT+ nd at TTtt@ 12.07.2024 Date of Order: 12.07.2024 Date of Issue: 12.07.2024 h?tv War: - win dt % vfR fw 6;rfu % Trq + BTft gt vr et }, at 46 @fVFTa Wi+T + fdp fl:vFq dt vr at } I

1. This copy is granted free of charge for the private use of the person to whom it is issued. q. sw .win gulfin/ nw&qaqj{gt Rdn wrln, VIta, Tit (Wfte-MI, Tjgh), Htnt +faa TV f+T, aT&ft{ uw, 4 in mJ dR =Ti411 oolqjwftm ztv%ar}I wfta,{aaTh#t9fR®fmTavq+vm§t+#taTfhg8©vawzfq:t©qXrawavFeyra€T+ dRaTfta+waf©l#t3M hMqrqt/yqT#tMFft=nf§1,.1 aNte iT vr=1 f+=afmf©a %rIna di -nf§l': – q-f3lWaTiU+ifhV© wftavqa#tvr#t}3u WTengt4yfwJ7qwfta#t4yfmTl a -3$ftaqTfel%TVF9fwit#8zqaqt#tvTa„nf€F3hvrMVfh# vr213rft?lwMwftwv;iqIqjqtgT3Tl'I q–amffq,{awftanftmT#t#qaqRyf+wfwrwTr %If =fIIM wrrna©ft }– (i) =In f#qqqt: +t u©nTfh wlv 50/-3+21vr :311+ qq } at V=IF 0.65 %r %If qt +-I (ii) vfl TnTftT ww 50/ - 8 uftm i it vw 1.00/- %r +H =ft Mr

Any person aggrieved by this order may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner, Appeal, Pune (Appeal-II, Pune Zone), 3'd Floor 'F’ Wing, ICE House, 41-A Sassoon Road, Pune 411001.

.00/- %r +H =ft Mr 2. Any person aggrieved by this order may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner, Appeal, Pune (Appeal-II, Pune Zone), 3'd Floor 'F’ Wing, ICE House, 41-A Sassoon Road, Pune 411001. The appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of personal service or of the date of receipt by post by the party. It must be accompanied by: (a) Four copies of the appeal together with four copies of the order appealed against. (b) The appeal petition should be filed in a set of four copies and each copy will have to be completed with all annexure relied upon in the appeal. (c) However, only one copy of this appeal petition must bear court fee stamps as under: (i) if the amount value of the subject matter is fifty or less than fifty - Rs.0.65. (ii) if such amount of value exceeds fifty- Rs.1.00 3 . f&v©fbfwm(+wr 2), 2014uu9fittnfQaWr3Rn\E%ufhfwn, 1944#Tvru35 3avnrfhn\nq@ftIwlv, 1962#two 129{,atrTvtvrq©r d, ii aM v8TvFq3rqqr v[,qHqr{gqHt+f8qT€6t @=rqr+©v§T#qa+€wfaqR Bt, vd=M'TqvFqa5 7.5 gflITa$t31qBrft w 3w(3Ffta)#vq© w 3uh&f&w 3rft?l€nt#tvrvqTd il 3. An appeal against this order shall lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) on payment of 7.5% of the duty demanded where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where penalty alone is in dispute, as provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and/or Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, as the case may be, as substituted vide Finance Act (No.2), 2014 Udfbd VTZt nr 7rq- M/s Lucky Clearing Agency, 59, Goa Street, Dr.

ntral Excise Act, 1944 and/or Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, as the case may be, as substituted vide Finance Act (No.2), 2014 Udfbd VTZt nr 7rq- M/s Lucky Clearing Agency, 59, Goa Street, Dr. Sunderlal Bahl Path, 31, Kakal Building, 2nd Floor, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Page 1 of 19

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: - M/s. Lucky Cleal at 59, Goa Street, Dr. S] (hereinafter referred to License bearing No. PN/ validity of the license hf Shri Narayan H. Khari transacting their bushel and Kandla Customs as 2. On the regular cl No. 8795836 dated 16.1 Customs broker M/s. Mumbai which resulted of the cannabis plant pl of NDPS Act, 1985. T] around Rs. 1.96 crores. 3.1. During the inv€ and G-Card holder of :Fambe were recorded was uilclcrtakc ll at the provided by the imporl 3.2. On 21.11.2023, Lucky Clearing Agenc! were recorded under Kharayat, it was founl the other importer firr Trading (IEC-EUUPA€ 3.3. On 22.11.2023 Larch was conducted addressed mentioned in the invoice of M/s Airan Trading (Unit F-6, lst &oor, Prabhadevi Industrial Estate, Prabhadevi Mumbai 400025) related to the importer and it waI found that n, ,u,h fi,m, ,,i,t ,n th, ,dd„„. As the IEC, Gl accordingly, DeLhi C] mentioned three impl Customs by the invel .p,r,ti,n,I in th, ,ddI 4.1. During the inl holder of M/s. Luckyl Act in which he int€ 16.11.2023 on behalf importer; he failed Enterprises; he hims€ Entry No.

tioned three impl Customs by the invel .p,r,ti,n,I in th, ,ddI 4.1. During the inl holder of M/s. Luckyl Act in which he int€ 16.11.2023 on behalf importer; he failed Enterprises; he hims€ Entry No. 8795836 fr( existence of the addr he told his staff to u dated 16.11.2023 on genuineness of the address mentioned L at the address on roal I P DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 lg Agency (Partnership, having PAN No. AABFL1239R), office premises [nderla1 Bahl Path, 31, Kakal Building, 2nd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400001 'the Customs Broker/CB/ Applicant’) is the holder of a Customs Broker £26/1998 issued by Pune Customs under Regulation 7 of CBLR, 2018. The h by M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency is lifetime and Shri Chetan K. Mehta & rat are the partners of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency. The CB is also in other Customs stations such as Mumbai Customs, Mundra Customs ler Regulation 7(3) of CBLR, 2018. Lrse of examination, one import consignment covered under Bill of Entry .2023 filed by importer Ajay Malik (IEC-HKGPM3853J) through the [cky Clearing Agency was examined by the officers of Import Shed, ACC, Into the recovery of total weighing 7857 gms. of flowering or fruiting tops -ported to be Ganja/Marijuana and the same was seized under Section 42 estimated value of the seized ganja/marijuana in the grey market is ;tigation, on 18.11.2023, the statement of Mr. Narayan Kharayat, Partner [/s. Lucky Clearing Agency, Mr. Madhav H. Kharavat and Mr. Subhash Inder sect{on 67 of the NDPS Act. SimultaneousIv, on 18.11.2023, search lfficc of the CB M/s.

ement of Mr. Narayan Kharayat, Partner [/s. Lucky Clearing Agency, Mr. Madhav H. Kharavat and Mr. Subhash Inder sect{on 67 of the NDPS Act. SimultaneousIv, on 18.11.2023, search lfficc of the CB M/s. -Luck.y Clearing Agency and at the delivery address ] [, ,t,t,m,nt, .f M,. N,,,y,n Kh,„v,t, P,,tr„, ,nd G-C,„d h.Id„ .f M/,. and Mr. Chetdn Mehta, F-Card holder of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency }ction 67 of the NDPS Act. While recording the statements of Mr. Narayan that the above-said importer Ajay Malik (IEC-HKGPM3853J) is linked to namely M/s Smart Moves Overseas (IEC-ELRPR0106Q) and M/s Airan }89C) in „lad,n t, imp,„t ,f th, „i,,d G,„j,/ M„iju,n,. addresses of the above-stated three importers/firms mentioned in Delhi, ;LouIS (Preventive) were asked to search the addresses of the above- rters bv issuing a letter. On 01.12.2023, e-mail h’as received from Delhi igating agency stating that the all three importers are not existent/not sses :stigation, the statement of Mr. Narayan Kharayat, Partner and G-Card :learing Agency was recorded on 25.11.2023 under section 67 of the NDPS F-alia stated that he filed the above-said Bill of Entry No.8795836 dated )f M/s. Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises without authority letter from the do the KYC verification of the documents of M/s. Ajay Malik/Malik paid the customs duty & other charges for the above-mentioned Bill of m bank account of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency; he knew about the non- ;s related to the importer provided by the person named Mr. Sourav Raha; [ead the wrong Textile Committee report for the Bill of Entry No.

ccount of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency; he knew about the non- ;s related to the importer provided by the person named Mr. Sourav Raha; [ead the wrong Textile Committee report for the Bill of Entry No. 8795836 )ehalf of M/s Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises; he failed to ascertain the jient in respect of M/s Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises; he knew that the the invoice and the IEC were different; he told his staff to deliver the goods ;ide parking area other than the actual address mentioned in the invoice. Page 2 of 19

fR I t DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 4.2. Further, during the analysis of Call Data Record of the mobile no.6307658945 of Mr. Sourav Raha (beneficiary owner), it was noticed that Mr. Nara)'an H. Kharayat, Partner & G-Card holder of M/s Lucky Clearing Agency is the main person to be in contact with Mr. Sourav Raha and also the last person to be in contact with Mr. Soura' I:aha. It appeared that Mr. Narayan H. Kharayat informed Mr. Sourav Raha about the seizure of narcotic drugs after which the mobile number of Mr. Sourav Raha was switched off. 4.3. On the basis of above-mentioned facts, it appeared that Mr. Narayan H Kharayat, Partner and G-Card holder of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency was involved in the import of the contraband and had contravened the provisions of Section 8(c) & Section 23(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The above facts also stated that Shri Narayan Kharayat deliberately submitted the wrong documents to the customs authority at different instance of this case and hence contravened the provisions of Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In view of the above, Mr.

iberately submitted the wrong documents to the customs authority at different instance of this case and hence contravened the provisions of Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In view of the above, Mr. Nara\’an H Khara)'at, Partner & G-Card holder of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency was placed under arrest on 25.1 '1 .2023 for offence punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 23(b) of the NDPS Act 5.1. In the instant case, as per the offence report, it appeared that Mr. Narayan Kharayat/ Partner and G-Card holder of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency in his statement dated 25.11.2023 accepted that he had filed the above-said Bill of Entry No.8795836 dated 16.11.2023 on behalf of M/s. Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises without an authority letter from the importer. Thus/ it appeared that the CB had violated Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018, which reads as below: “lO(a) obtain an a11tlror{sation Porn eaclr of the cornpanies, finns or individ11als bV tvholn he is for the time being employed as a Crtstolns Broker and prodltce s11ch altthotisatton tuheneve7 reqltired by the DeptttV Colnrnissioner of Crtstorns or Assistant Commissioner of Ctlstoms, as the case may be;" 5.2. Further, as per the offence report it appeared that this is a case of illegal import of restricted/prohibited items i.e. Ganja/Marijuana which is restricted/prohibited as per Sections 8(c) r/w 23(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, it also appeared that Che CB firm had filed the above-said Bill of Entry in connivance with the importer by concealing the ganja/marijuana and had aided & abetted in the wrongdoings of the importer.

it also appeared that Che CB firm had filed the above-said Bill of Entry in connivance with the importer by concealing the ganja/marijuana and had aided & abetted in the wrongdoings of the importer. It was the responsibility of the CB M/s' Lucky Clearing Agency, Pune to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and thT rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance/ shall bring the matter to the notice oT the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Thus it appeared that CB had failed to advise their client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and had thereby violated Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR/ 2018/ which reads as below: 10(d) HA cltst011ts broker shall advise his client to coinIIly tvitlr the provisions of the Actr other allied Acts and the mIles and reglllations thereof/ and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the DeprrtY Colmnissionet of C11stoms or Asslstant Colrultissioner of CrLstoms, as the case may be;" 5.3. Further, a lot of trust is kept in the Customs BToker bY the Government and to ensuTe the ,pp,„.p„ht, dis'-h,rg, of such t„„sts, the relevant regulations were framed. As per the offense ,epo,.t, M„. N',.y.„ H Kh„„.y,t, P.,t„„ & (,-c„d holder of the Customs Broker Firm M/ s Lucky Clearing Agency in his statement dated 25.11.2023 accepted that he failed to ascertain the g,n„i.,n„, ,f th, ,li,nt in respect of M/s Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises. It appeared that the Customs Broker had not done their work with utmost efficiency.

ccepted that he failed to ascertain the g,n„i.,n„, ,f th, ,li,nt in respect of M/s Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises. It appeared that the Customs Broker had not done their work with utmost efficiency. Hence/ it also appeared that the CB had faded to exercise due diligence to the correctness of information in respect of the fraudulent importer, otherwise/ they could have not attempted to import of these gords Th„,f'„.,, it ,pp„„,d th,t CB had violated Regulation IO (') 'f CBLR, 2018 whi'1' "-d; ;” --d': p,„,, a nf 1 a

10(,) „A C„,t„& b„ 1„, ,7,„ZZ „„, i„ d„, dilig,„„ t, „„,t,h, th, „rredtHess of amy information bublrh he imparts to a client tonk reference to amy tvork related to clearance of cargo or baggag#" 5.4. Further, as per Card holder of M/s Lu{ filed the above-said Bill Enterprises without al documents of M/s. Aj: above-mentioned Bill told his staff to uploadl 16.11.2023 on behalf ol address related to the address mentioned in violated Regulation 10 IO(I1)" verify c4recfHess of bnp OTter Exporter Code (IEC) nln IIber, Goods and Seruices Tax Identification +11mbet (GSTIN), identity of his client and Pmctioning of his client at the declared add#s by ltsing reliable, independent, alltltelltic do clllllents, data Ol information;” 6. The evidence and was in violation occupIes a very lmp( interests of both the iI Government Agencie i had violated Regulati( 2018 and rendered hi] 7. Accordingly, tIe CB license no. PN/R/26/1998 (PAN No.-AABFL1239R) was suspended vide Order No. 01/2(#4 dated 08.05.2024.

h the iI Government Agencie i had violated Regulati( 2018 and rendered hi] 7. Accordingly, tIe CB license no. PN/R/26/1998 (PAN No.-AABFL1239R) was suspended vide Order No. 01/2(#4 dated 08.05.2024. Subsequently, the Suspension of the CHA license was revoked vide Order NB. 03/2024 dated 27.05.2024 as per Regulation 16(2) of the CBLR, after giving the CB PH opportuni4 on 22.05.2024. SHOW CAUSE NI 8. In view of the lbove, a Show Cause Notice No. 02/2024–25 dated 03.06.2024 was issued for alleging inter-alia vi+tion of Regulation 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the Customs Bl:oke1 Licensing Regulation] 20- 18 and as per provision of Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018, the CB M/s Lucky Clearing Ager,& was hereby called upon to show cause, as to why: (i) (ii) Smt. Archan; Inquiry Officer to c( connection, the CB Nl Accordingly, Person£ written SCN reply. DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 le offence report it appeared that Mr. Nara)'an Kharayat, Partner and G- ty Clearing Agency in his statement dated 25.11.2023 accepted that he had )f Entry No.8795836 dated 16.11.2023 on behalf of M/s. Ajay Malik/Malik horit' letter from the importer; failed to do the KYC verification of the Malik/Malik Enterprises; paid the customs duty & other charges for the Entry No. 8795836 from bank account of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency; le wrong Textile Committee report for the Bill of Entry No. 8795836 dated IM/s Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises; knew about the non-existence of the Iporter provided by the person named Mr. Sourav Raha; knew that the le invoice and the IEC were different.

No. 8795836 dated IM/s Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises; knew about the non-existence of the Iporter provided by the person named Mr. Sourav Raha; knew that the le invoice and the IEC were different. Therefore, it appeared that CB had I) of CBLI{, 2018 which reads as under: record indicates that the CB was working in a seriously negligent manner the obligations cast upon them under the CBLR, 2018. A Customs Broker Itant position in the Customs House and is supposed to safeguard the )orters and the Customs department. A lot of trusts are kept in CB by the but by their acts of onlission and commission it appeared that the said CB 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) & 10 (n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, ;elf for penal action under Regulations 14, 17 & 18 of the CBLR, 2018. 'ICE ISSUED ON 03.06.2024: - the Cukoms Broker license bearing no. PN/IV26/1998 issued to them should not be revok4 and security deposit should not be forfeited under Regulation 14 read with 17 & 1#of the CBLR, 2018. penal4 should not be imposed upon them under Regulation 14 read with 17 & 18 of the C+R, 2018 for their failure to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018 as elabor#ed in Paras above of this show cause notice within 30 days from the date of issue 4 this notice. :. Kulkarni, Assistant Conlmissioner, Pune Customs was appointed as an lduct inquiry into the case under Regulation 17 of the CBLR, 2018. In this s Lucky Clearing Agency was given an opportunity to represent their case. Hearing in the matter was held on 12.06.2024 and they also submitted then Page 4 of 19

ulation 17 of the CBLR, 2018. In this s Lucky Clearing Agency was given an opportunity to represent their case. Hearing in the matter was held on 12.06.2024 and they also submitted then Page 4 of 19

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 DEFENSE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE CUSTOMS BROKER BEFORE IO: - 9. Mr. Narayan Kharayat, Partner and G-Card holder of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency attended the personal hearing on 12.06.2024. During the hearing, he submitted a written submission and reiterated the same. Further, it was also submitted by him that he had telephonically called the importer on 16.11.202:3 to submit the Authorization Letter; the importer informed him that he was out of town and would submit the same by the next day via e-mail, when he reached Delhi. However, the importer did not contact the applicant and after 06.30 PM the mobile no. of the importer was not reachable. Due to this, the applicant had not taken the Authorization Letter from the Importer. Further, the applicant submitted that he has an unblemished career of over 27 years in the clearing business. In addition, he also submitted that 06 employees are working under him; there is no other means of livelihood with him and no sources of income and all the family members of him and other employees depend upon his business and his business work. Further, he requested to take a lenient view and drop the proceedings against him. Further, they had submitted their written submission as well as oral, during the personal hearIng on 12.06.2024 inter alia submitted that:- • Upon the receipt of the Order no.

oceedings against him. Further, they had submitted their written submission as well as oral, during the personal hearIng on 12.06.2024 inter alia submitted that:- • Upon the receipt of the Order no. 01/2024 suspending the license of the Applicant, the Applicant submitted a detailed reply mentioning the grounds on merits and the Hon'ble Commissioner of Customs Shri Yashodhan Wattage rightly revoked the suspension of license vide Order no. 03/2024 dated 27.05.2024 • with respect to para 1 of the Sho\v Cause Notice No. 02/2024-25, the contents thereof are true and correct. The fact is that the Applicant is a Custom House Agent whose role is a license holding individual that helps exporters and importers with their shipments at the customs station. The Applicant has an unblenUshed career of over 27 years in the clearing business. e with res,peck to paras 2/ 3.1 and 3.2 of Lhc Show Cause NoH(_-e No. 02/2024-25, the contents thereof are a matter of record of investigating agency. The Applicant strictIY denied having knowledge about the grey market value of the seized material and further denied the links between the importers; the said facts may have been unearthed bY the inveshgatlng agencY during its investigation. Despite the contentions, the Applicant had co-operated with tht investigation agency as and when called upon, prior to his arrest and had continued afterwards. The SlIB issued summons to the Applicant Mr. Nara}’an KharaYat unde1 section 67 of NDPS Act on 18.11.2023 to appear ilr person on 20.

en called upon, prior to his arrest and had continued afterwards. The SlIB issued summons to the Applicant Mr. Nara}’an KharaYat unde1 section 67 of NDPS Act on 18.11.2023 to appear ilr person on 20. 1-1.2023 and provided evidence, produced documents related to goods inlported ride B/E no. 8795836, Bank Account details and AADH AR/ PAN details. The Applicant complied with the summons, provided all the documents and co-operated with the investigation. The Respondent agaln issued a summons dated 21.11.2023 to the Applicant u/s. 67 of bJDPS Act to appear in person on 22.11.2023 for enquiry, the Applicant complied and temained present and co- operated with the investigation. The Respondent on 23.11.2023 again issued a summons to the Appli'.,nt to .,main p'„,„nt b,f.„, him on 24.'11.2023 for enquiry with related to g''lps imported vide B/E no. 8795836. The ApplicanF again co-operated and appeared be.fof\th\e ag:nc), when he was arrested and taken into 'custody for the offences under section 8(c), 23(b) and 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Applicant was pToduced in tenland on 25'1}'2?23 before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate’s 33rd Sunda}’ Court/ Esplanade, N''lumbai' The Prosecution filed a Remand Application seeking Judicial CustodY of the Application fof ll days. The Ld. Metropolitan Mdgistrdte was pleased to grant the Judicial Custody and relLanded the Applicant upto 1;l December/ 2023- The Hon’ble ComndssioneF of Cus}onls has rightly pointed out in para 12 of the order 03/2024 that/ “-l'lle case of tIle VFOSCCUtiO 1’1 IS based 011 jlaRne incoherent facts.

t upto 1;l December/ 2023- The Hon’ble ComndssioneF of Cus}onls has rightly pointed out in para 12 of the order 03/2024 that/ “-l'lle case of tIle VFOSCCUtiO 1’1 IS based 011 jlaRne incoherent facts. '-t-here iS 110 p7inln _facie COW made Oltt ngni11sF tllc C:B Furtherm01.i’, in para 1.3, the Hon’bIc Commissioner found force in the citations relied UPon bv the Applicant and held that the suspension of license is not waTTantt3d in th'' SLIL'ject case e with respect to para 3.3 of the Sho\v Cause Notice No. 02/2024-25, the A£pjica1 it 1: noT concerned and/ or aware of the course of investigation of the SiIB AgencY and the emails as exchanged by and between SlIB and Delhi Customs pnv? q of 1 q

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8

With respect to strictly denied allegations in Court had Applicant and by the C?lStOIllS A COIIn ltissiorler dated 09.10.201 M/s ICS Conrmissioner crtatlons as r license vide the jara 4.1 and 4.3 of the Show Cause Notice No. 02/2024-25, the Applicant le contents thereof . The investigating agency had raised identical hearing of the Bail Application of the Applicant. The Hon’ble NDPS lwith the said allegations and found no prima facie case as against the Parged him on bail. The Applicant heavily relied on the judgement passed IDelhi High Court in the case of Nnllralr Gllpta z,s. COInllrissioller of [WP (C)1 5808/2022 /; Ure Hon’bIc Delhi High Court in the case of Cltstollrs (GeneraD Vs. KVS Cargo [2019(365) ELT 3951; M/s KVS Cargo Customs Appeal No. 159/2018; the Hon’bIc Delhi High Court in case of dated 7.3.7 0.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 51/2023.

the case of Cltstollrs (GeneraD Vs. KVS Cargo [2019(365) ELT 3951; M/s KVS Cargo Customs Appeal No. 159/2018; the Hon’bIc Delhi High Court in case of dated 7.3.7 0.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 51/2023. The Hon’ble [ Customs in his order dated 27.05.2024 had also found force in the Id upon by the Applican[ and rightly revoked the suspension of their jaid c)rder dated 27.05.2024 deal e Hon’ble rpo Carg e • With respect strictly denied 03.11. .2023, the another the applicant the relevant Applicant’s instead Shipment and sent the email ID CF Tambe Bill of Entrv VV as back to 1 and then one of his the to M/s Malik like a bearer Importer). It the importe1 Email to the Enterprises as the Applicant generated neglected to importer and toILara 5.1 and 5.2 of the Show Cause Notice No. 02/2024-25, the Applicant Lat he had violated reguldUons of Ehe CBLTt, 2018. The fact is that on LporEer Mr. Sourav Raha again approached the Applicant for clearance of Shipm at of Cotton T-shirts (same commodiby). The Importer this time approached foI booking from Thailand as well as clearing. The Applicant informed him of :ges, but the Impor ker's Shipper did not hand over the consignment to the ag#it based in Thailand and did not contact again regarding booking. And appoin ld M/s Bhag\vat Group for the same on paying higher charges. Once the arrivKl in India he once again serIE the Invoice, Packing List, Airway Bill Copy cojtact information of local forwarder M/s Bhagu'at Group on the Applicant’s Al1-13@gmail.com. And accordingly the Applicant’s employee Mr.

nce again serIE the Invoice, Packing List, Airway Bill Copy cojtact information of local forwarder M/s Bhagu'at Group on the Applicant’s Al1-13@gmail.com. And accordingly the Applicant’s employee Mr. Subha!,h up loadat the documents on the portal WWW.ICEG ATE.GOV.IN, but this time, the cc#Id not be generated due Lo an error code in the validity of GST. The same conlmunicHted to -the importer and applicant informed him to return the consignment through the same for'\A’arder. The importer was silent for a week’s time hail agai]japproached the Applicant with IEC, GST, PAN and Bank AD code from oth4 company i.e. M/s Malik Enterprises and requested the Applicant to cleal consignme#. The Airway Bill was changed by M/s Bhag\vat Group from Smart Moves :nterprises upon receiving instructions from the importer. ( Airway Bill is lheque which cannot be changed without the consent of Shipper and isDertinent to note that, M/s BhaE{wat Group was the Freight Forwarder fOI aRd in direct contact with the importer. M/s Bhag\vat Group sent a specific .pplicant instructing them to upload the documents from M/s Malik ler the changed Airway Bill which was also sent by them. The employees of 'plc)acted the documents as provided and a Bill of Entry was successfully andlbssigned for physical examination.

om M/s Malik ler the changed Airway Bill which was also sent by them. The employees of 'plc)acted the documents as provided and a Bill of Entry was successfully andlbssigned for physical examination. The Respondent Agency had failed and facilitation of the said )Id M/s Bhagwat Group as the prime suspect e \Vith respect denied that is no doubt ensure the the Customs Agency by without any inlporter, to fabricating IEC code Department nor DaFT documents docurnents any identitY of not even a the docu the importer’ planned Page 6 of 19

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 the ordinarv course. • With respect to para 5.4 of the Show Cause Notice No. 02/2024-25, the Applicant strictly denied that he had violated regulations of the CBLR, 2018. So far as, the allegation that, the Applicant himself paid custom duty and other charges, the Applicant had provided with relevant bank statements showing the entries that the importer transferred the exact custom’s fee first, and then the Applicant paid the customs duty from his account. The fact is thaE the importer Mr. Sourav Raha, like before, on 17.11..2023 again deposited a sum of Rs. 1.,41,500/- in 3 parts i.e. Rs. 47,500/- Rs. 48,000 and Rs. 44,000/- which is reflecEed in his bank statemenE. And after the receipt of which the Applicant paid the customs duty from his account of Rs. 1,04,206/- which includes custolns dury and Bill of entry late filing penalty along with Rs. 18,000/- MTPL custodian charges of .Rs. 1 8,000/-. • With respect to para 6 of the Show Cause NoEice No.

. 1,04,206/- which includes custolns dury and Bill of entry late filing penalty along with Rs. 18,000/- MTPL custodian charges of .Rs. 1 8,000/-. • With respect to para 6 of the Show Cause NoEice No. 02/2024-25, the Applicant strictly denied that he had violated the regulations of the CBLR, 2018. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Customs in para 15 of his order dated 27.05.2024 has rightly observed "15, III I'it’-to of tI le abc>ue Bndillgs, fIIP ])l-iuciple oF proportio} InliFv o.fpr£llis]lllletl [ nlrd considerillg tIre lirleliIIOOd of CB nllct tlll'.ir eur-plotfees, I 'filld tllnt tIre sllbrtltss-iolls 11111(ie by tIle CB are acceptable to the extelrt of trot continuing srlspetlsioll pendillg fttrtllt’r tIll]IIi rv proceedings ns per CB 1.1{, 2018. -i’I-lore nrL’ certain all.egatiolrs o.f colllnlissiolts mnd Olltissiolls on IIte part of tIle CB llrougllt out in prIya 1 1, but llrt’y nrc not grnrJe enorLglr to continr ie tIle SItS}IeltS toll of CB especially rotten seen ngatnst tIre nrgu.nl.ents nttun-1'Iced by tl Ie CB , The Hon’ble Commissioner in his order dated 27.05.2024 had also found force in the citations as relied upon by the Applicant and rightly revoked the suspension of his license vide the said order dated 27.05.2024. • The applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is not a habitual offender. He has a clean record for more than 27 years in the functioning of M/s Lucky Clearing Age?nc)’.

order dated 27.05.2024. • The applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is not a habitual offender. He has a clean record for more than 27 years in the functioning of M/s Lucky Clearing Age?nc)’. The applicant submiEted that, the Applicant is an innocent person and is not involved in anY activit' or offence alleged by the competent authoriEy and had been falsely implicated on circumstantial instances in the present case • The Applicant stated that, he had no personal or pecuniary interest in the impugned imports and that Lhc imports n’ere not for any oEher pcl-sonal bencfik of the Applicanl. The Respondent found no evidence as that (if placement of purchase order bY the Applicant and of foreign remittances in favour of the Applicant etc. which might pFove the alleged connivance of the Applicant. • The applicant further stated that, the case of Respondent is based on vague and incoherent facts; The applicant further submitted that, there is no prima facie case made out agalnst the applicant as alleged by the prosecuting Agency; Furthermore, the prosecution had failed to point out the motive of the present applicant, there was no motive of the present applicant to comnlit the said crime;

as alleged by the prosecuting Agency; Furthermore, the prosecution had failed to point out the motive of the present applicant, there was no motive of the present applicant to comnlit the said crime; The applicant further stated that/ the present applicant was being made a scapegoat in Lhc present nlabter a11d thc InvcsHgating AgencY had onl> apprehended the present applicant c)r_ allegations u’lrich are verY bleak and have circumstantial value and cannot be relied upon by your good self • The applicant further stated that, the sections levelled bY khe Investigating AgencY agaln-st the present applicant are nok applicable as the present applicant is onIY a Custom House Agent, he is neiCher the user, nor the const};nee, nor the importer/ he’s mefel>’ a facilitat01 who also happens Lo be a vicLim of the importer’s dubious plan. The AgencY tecovc:fed flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant purported to be Ganja/Marijuana weighing 7857 gms. and the same was seized. The said quantity is an intermediate quantitY and not a commercial quantiFy, therefore the rigors of section 37 are not attracted' 8 It is submitted that the Applicant had conducted his due diligence and subndtteci the coP> of tht, Email by M/s Bhdgw,it Group to their console agent who instructed to act as per the [>aaa 7 nf 1 a

It is submitted that the Applicant had conducted his due diligence and subndtteci the coP> of tht, Email by M/s Bhdgw,it Group to their console agent who instructed to act as per the [>aaa 7 nf 1 a

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 changed Hc)usc delivery order a: Applicant also I' Bhagwat (;rou] trapping this Al The Applicant 4avily relied on the citations of the case of NamaH Gllpta DS. Commissioner of Cast 011ts A£k70rt [WP (C)15808/2022], Klulal Travels (Cargo) as. Coryunissioner of cust Ol.ns amp4t & General) Neto Cllstollts House, IGI Airport Neto Delhi [2017 SCC OnLine Del /768H]/ Colru11issioller of C11stonts (General) as. KVS Cargo [2019(365) ELT 3951, M/s Kvs cal,g41dafed 09.10.2018 in C11stoms Appeal No. 159/2018, M/s ICS Cargo dated 13/10/2023 in C#t0711S Appeal No, 51/2023. • THE APPLIC. a. The HI grdciously pIl no. 02/2024-: conditions as b. The Ap F. NO. SIIB(1: and Intelligel] c. Any s: granted. FINDINGS OF TII- 10. Vide the Inq+ry Report dated 25.06.2024. the Inquiry Officer furnished the following findings: - “12, 1 have 07.03.2024 iss, before the Col 03.06.2024 iss I me during the limited to asct Customs Brokt Show Cause NI have v/o/atedl Regulation lal 13, / oZ>seI conslg nme nE (IECHKGPM31 panchana ma resulted into plant purport AcE. On 18.11 cleclri11g age/?I of the NDPS Agency and 18.11.2023 Kharaya[ an, Corporation, Lil.way Bi11 from M/s Smart Moves to M/s Malik Enterprises and do per the same. The Agency refused to take the same on record.

ri11g age/?I of the NDPS Agency and 18.11.2023 Kharaya[ an, Corporation, Lil.way Bi11 from M/s Smart Moves to M/s Malik Enterprises and do per the same. The Agency refused to take the same on record. Furthef / the aged a Police Complaint against the Importer and the Freight FoEwatde1 a,ho are the real perpeh-atol-s, for their involvenlent and connivance 111

licant; the same was also submitted to the Agency/Respondent' .NT THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT n’b Ie Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Inquiry Officer may be [s,d to qu,sh ,nd S,t „id, the ,bo„, sh,w „„„ nc,ti„ i„u,d u„d,r .rde1 and allow the present applicant to continue his license by levying any [„ Hon’bl, Co„„„issio„„ m,y d,,m fit ,nd proper. llicmit also undertakes to co-operate in the investigations in connection with C,en–05/2023-24/ ACC investigated by the officials of Special Investigation :e Branch (SIIB), IInport, ACC, N'lun Ibai Customs Zone III; [h .th,„ .,d„ „ th, H..’bl, C,„„,„,i„i„n„ m,y d,„„ fit and proper be INQUIRY OFFICER: - lrefutly perused all the available records of the case, the Offence Report dated 3d by the SlIB (1), ACC, Mumbai, the submissions dated 20,05.2024 made by the CB \issioner of Customs as well as the Show Cause Notice No, 02/2024-25 dated td by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune and submissions made by the CB before H held on 12,06,2024. The present inquiry against the charged Customs Broker is \tain whether the Customs Broker has violated any of the provisions, mentioned in -s Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, by any act or omis§ion.

present inquiry against the charged Customs Broker is \tain whether the Customs Broker has violated any of the provisions, mentioned in -s Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, by any act or omis§ion. On perusal of the \tice 02/2024-25 dated 03,06,2024, it is observed that the CB has been alleged to the provisions of Regulation 10(a), RegulaEiorl 10(d), Regulation 10(e) and I) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. 'ed that the case is that, during the regular course of examination, one import lvered under Bill of ElIEry No. 8795836 dated 16.11.2023 by impor[er Ajay Malik 131) through the Customs broker M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency was examined under lated 17.11.2023/18.11.2023 by the officers of Import Shed, ACC, Mumbai which ?covery of total weighing 7857 gms. of Powering or fruiting tops of the cannabis CO be Ganja/Marijuana and the same was seized under the provision of the NDPS \023. sta EemellC of Mr Nora),all Kharaya C, PorEller and G-Card holder of M/s. Lucky Mr. Madhav H. I<har(lynE atld Mr. Subhash Tambe were recorded under section 67 \t. On 18.11,2023, search was undertaken at che office of the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing the delivery address provided by the importer, Then, summonses were issued on Shri Chetan Mehta, F-card holder of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency, Narayan to Ms, Prajakta f ada' clerk/operacor from Freight Forwarder BhaqwaE Group lavi Mumbai under sec Lion 67 of the NDPS AcC. Delhi CusEoms were asked Eo search Page 8 of 19

ky Clearing Agency, Narayan to Ms, Prajakta f ada' clerk/operacor from Freight Forwarder BhaqwaE Group lavi Mumbai under sec Lion 67 of the NDPS AcC. Delhi CusEoms were asked Eo search Page 8 of 19

DIN-20240768MFOOO0222AE8 addresses of the importers by issuing letter. On 01.12.2023, maii was received from Delhi Customs by investigating agency stating that all addresses of three importers are not associated wi Eh the importers and are occupied by other persons, 14. On 25.11.2023, the CB made a sEatement inLer alia sEating that he DIed Bill of EnEl-y No.8795836 dated 16.11.2023 on behalf of M/s, Ajay Malik/ Malik Enterprises without authoriEy letter from the importer and he failed to do the KYC verification of the documents of the imporEer. The CB himself paid customs duty and other charges for the said Bill from bank account of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency and he knew abouE non-exisEence of address provided by the person named Mr. Sourav Raha. He uploaded wrong Textile CommiEtee Report tllrough staff for the said bill, He failed to idenLijy the qenuineness of the client. He knew Chat the address mentioned in Elle invoice and IEC were different. He told his staff to deliver the goods at the address other than that mentioned in the invoice. Hence, the CB was placed under arrest on 25.11.2023 for offence punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 23(b) of [he NDPS AcE. 15.1. Further, I also observed the submissions made by Ehe CB that, initially, Mr.

the CB was placed under arrest on 25.11.2023 for offence punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 23(b) of [he NDPS AcE. 15.1. Further, I also observed the submissions made by Ehe CB that, initially, Mr. Sourav Fiaha, proprietor of Smart Moves Overseas booked a consignment of T-shirts CO be cleared in the name of Smart Moves Overseas and appointed the applicant for Ehe customs clearing purpose. On 07.10.2023, the importer had deposited amount of Rs.69,500/- in Che bank. After Lhc receipt of the said amount, the applicant paid customs duty from his account of Rs.49,841/- and other charges, Upon instructions of the importer, delivery was handed over EO their representative at Kalbadevl and acknowledgment was received on the delivery chaltan. By pointing out this Eransaction, the applicant has attelnpted to show bona-fide way of his dealings with the clients, He furtller contended that the Airway Bill was changed by M/s. Bhagw/at Group from Smart Moves to M/s. Malik Enterprises upon receiving instrucEi6ns from the imporEer, ThereafEer, the importer Mr, Sourav Raha again approached the Applicant for clearance of another Shipment of Cotton T- shirts (same commodity). The Importer thIS time approached the applicant for booking from Thailand as well as clearing. The Applicant informed him of the relevant charges/ but the Importer’s Shipper did not hand over the consignment to the Applicant’s agent based in Thailand and did not contact again regarding booking. And instead appointed M/s Bhagwat Group for the same on paying higher charges.

id not hand over the consignment to the Applicant’s agent based in Thailand and did not contact again regarding booking. And instead appointed M/s Bhagwat Group for the same on paying higher charges. Once the Shipment arrived in India he once again sent the Invoice, Packing List, Airway Bill Copy and sent the contact information of local forwarder M/s Bhagwat Group on the Applicant’s emaIl ID CHAl113@gmail.com. And accordingIY the Applicant’s employee Mr. Subhash Tambe uploaded the documents on the portal WWW.ICEGATE.GOV.IN, but this time, the Bill of entry could not be generated due to an error code in the validity of GST. The same was communicated to the importer and applicant informed him to return the consignment back to Thailand through the same forwarder' The importer was silent for a week’s time and then again approached the Applicant with IECp GST/ PAN and Bank AD codefrom one of his other company i.e. M/s Malik Enterprises and requested the Applicant to ciear the consignment. The Airway Bill was changed by M/s Bhagwat Group from Smart Moves to M/s Malik Enterprises upon receiving instructions from the importer. (AirwaY Bill is like a bearer cheque which cannot be changed without the consent of Shipper and Importery it is pertinent to note that, M/s Bhagwat Group was the Freight FoIwarder for the importer and in direct contact with the importer. M/s Bhagwat Group sent a specific Email to the App{icant instructing them to upload the documents from M/s Malik Enterprises as per the changed AirwaY Bill which was also sent by them.

the importer. M/s Bhagwat Group sent a specific Email to the App{icant instructing them to upload the documents from M/s Malik Enterprises as per the changed AirwaY Bill which was also sent by them. The employees of the Applicant uploaded the documents as provided and a Bill of Entry was successfully generated and assigned for phYsical examination. The Respondent AgencY has failed and neglected to hold M/s Bhagwat Group as the prime suspect in facilitation of the said importer and made the applicant a scapegoat and easY target- 15.2. Further, the Applicant states that there is no doubt that an obligation has been cast on the CHA/CB under the CBLR so as to ensure the documents as required for the purposes of enabling the import are forwarded to the Customs. The Importer established a clear and genulne character to the Applicant’s Agency by giving genuine documenEs for thejrst shipment and it was cleared smoothly without any problems. After narrating all these deEaiis, the CB contended that he has no criminal antecedents and he is not a habitual offender. He has a clean record for more than 27 years in the functioning of M/s. LuckY Clearing AgencY. The CB is an innocent person and is not involved in any activity or offense alleged by the competent authority and he has been Dana a nf 1 O

years in the functioning of M/s. LuckY Clearing AgencY. The CB is an innocent person and is not involved in any activity or offense alleged by the competent authority and he has been Dana a nf 1 O

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 falsely implicated con U PA a D well-planned indulged in obtain bogus the Income Tax PAN card nor documents. Even or the identity on the CHA to seems to be with such departmental Applicant most adopted could 6. 1 find force in Hon’ble Delli Customs (/dport Line Del 76#3/ “12. GaLlseEeJ Ich regarding related to c/Harance entry and \ipping name of ch oblig ate chIC/a exporter/I'rd?orter. isIng It is a pro house and house area, mentioned backgroun \erefore, authorities, for too on4ous given to it is a presu4k)Cfon have been Hfone appellant 'd truth of td cannot &e Irl), value oF not corro db raCe declaratio, provided the The grant respect coIIn e address Code, the )pellar The CHA for facili 'orI the CHA Imparts (emphasijsupplied) ?cessari ly and not Documen from iES Ilet attribute, furnishel Cl e ourav 'e iible ce Lori ties lmbly 0 h u nfc dilig a n th Jkase of the aforesaid Regulation requires exercise of due diligence by the CHA information which he may give to his client with reference to any work of cargo. Clause (1) requires that all documents submitted, such as bills of bills delivered etc. reFect the name of the importer/exporter and the CHA prominently at the top of such documents.

y work of cargo. Clause (1) requires that all documents submitted, such as bills of bills delivered etc. reFect the name of the importer/exporter and the CHA prominently at the top of such documents. The aforesaid clauses do not to look into such information which may be made available to it from the The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through customs that process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs What is noteworthy is that the IE Code of the exporter M/s H.M. Impex was the shipping bills, this itself reFects that before the grant of said IE Code, the check of the said importer/exporter had been undertaken by the customs there was no doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify the genuineness of the IE Code a clientfor each import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there that an appropriate background check in this regard i.e. KYC etc. would by the customs authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the knowledge that the goods mentioned in the shipping bills did not reject the consignment sought to be exported. In the absence of such knowledge, there mens rea attributed to the appellant or its proprietor. Whatever may be the goods, in the present case, simply because upon inspection of the goods they did with what was declared in the shipping bills, cannot be deemed as mis- by the CHA because the said document was filed on the basis of information it by M/s H.M.

upon inspection of the goods they did with what was declared in the shipping bills, cannot be deemed as mis- by the CHA because the said document was filed on the basis of information it by M/s H.M. Impex, which had already been granted an IE Code by the DGFT. IE Code presupposes a verifIcation offacts etc. made in such application with concern or entity. If the grant of such IE Code to a non-existent entity at the '.56, Madipur, New Delhi - 63 is in doubt, then for such erroneous grant of the IE t cannot be faulted. The IE Code is the proof of locus standi of the exporter. not expected to do a background check of the exporter/client who approaches it services in export and imports. Regulation 13(e) of the CHALR 2004 requires “exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage The CHAs due diligence is for information that he may give to its client to do a background check of either the client or of the consignment. prepared or filed by a CHA are on the basis of instructions/documents received t/importer/exporter. Furnishing of wrong or incorrect information cannot be to the CHA if it was innocently fIled in the belief and faith that its client has correct information and veritable documents. The mis-declaration would be circumstantial instances in the present case. The Applicant states that it IS a the importer/ to defraud the Government.

has correct information and veritable documents. The mis-declaration would be circumstantial instances in the present case. The Applicant states that it IS a the importer/ to defraud the Government. The manner in which he ting the documents and on the basis thereof he managed to code from DGFT and on that basis he opened a Bank Account. Neither verified the genuineness of the election voter card before issuing the while issuing the IEC code raise any objections on the authenticity of the Bank officials before opening the bank account did not verifY the documents Rah(1 and/or Ajay Malik. In this scenario to attribute anY responsibilitY verified the authenticity of these documents or the identitY of the exporter It is absolutely impossible for a CHA who is not even a public servant to act that he could ascertain the veracity of the documents which even the could not ascertain and unearth the importer’s modus operandi. The submits that it is a pre-planned modus operandi which the importer had have been detected in Che ordinary course, n .iracy hy tlently fabricc trd, IEC 'partrnent laws relied upon by the CB in the instant matter, namely. High Court in the case of Kunal Travels Cargo vs. Commissioner of & General) New Customs House, 1(;1 Airport New Delhi [2017 SCC On Page 10 of 19

relied upon by the CB in the instant matter, namely. High Court in the case of Kunal Travels Cargo vs. Commissioner of & General) New Customs House, 1(;1 Airport New Delhi [2017 SCC On Page 10 of 19

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 attributable to the client if wrong information were deliberately supplied to the CHA. Hence there could be no guilt/ wrong, fault or penalty on the appellant apropos the contents of the shipping bills. Apropos any doubt about the issuance of the IE Code to M/s H.S. Impex, iE was for the respondents to take appropriate action. Furthermore, the inquiry report revealed that there was no delay in processing the documents by the appellant under Regulation 13(n), 20. It was thus evident from the legal position as enunciated in Kunal Travels (supra), Customs Broker is entitled to proceed on the basis that IEC has come to be generated in favour of the exporter after appropriate background check having been conducted by the customs authorities. The further details that may have been captured and form part of IEC Registration of an importer are aspects which have to be verified by the customs authorities themselves. Moreover, it is also not the case of the Department that IEC, GST IN, PAN & Authorized Dealer Code of the exporters were not genuine. In the aforesaid backdrop the Court in Kunal Travels (supra) held that the obligation of the CHA under Section 13 (e) of the CHALR/ 2004 cannot be stretched to it being obliged to undertake a further background check of the client.

urt in Kunal Travels (supra) held that the obligation of the CHA under Section 13 (e) of the CHALR/ 2004 cannot be stretched to it being obliged to undertake a further background check of the client. As such, as a Customs Broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable, after the issuance of 'Let Export Orders’ and export of the goods out of the country. -21. In our considered opinion, the Commissioner of Customs erred in accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer regards the failure of Customs Broker to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(d), 10 (m), 10 (n) & 10 (q) of the CBLR, 2018. 22. The Writ Petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2022, insofar as, it revokes the CB License of the petitioner and levies penalty upon the petitioner shall stand quashed and set aside. b. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. KVS Cargo [2019(365) ELT 395]:- “Para 3. In this regard the Court notices that both the authorities - the Commissioner as well as CESTAT appeared to have imposed almost impossibly high standards upon the CB holder who is expected to not only verify the correctness of the documents with reference to the publicly available material what aiso carry out independent investigation.

high standards upon the CB holder who is expected to not only verify the correctness of the documents with reference to the publicly available material what aiso carry out independent investigation. No doubt, the CB holder acts as an interface between the Customs Authorities and facilitates the task of a consignee / importer, yet to such an independent agent - who is noE a public servant or in any way connected with the Customs Department to act as a public trustee, is beyond what is contemplated, 17. 1 also find force that, the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency has been functioning as a Customs Broker for more than 27 years without having stated ly caused any prejudice to the interests of Revenue. He has no criminal anEecedents and he is noE a habitual offender. He has a statedly c[ean record for more than 27 years in the functioning of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency. This is the first such instance in the past 27 years, where doubt has been raised about their work." CONCLUSION OF THE INQUIRY REPORT BY THE INQUIRY OFFICER:- 11. Vide the Inquiry Report dated 25.06.2024, the Inquiry Officer furnished the following conclusions: - '18. From the discussions and finding s as mentioned above. I conclude the fIndings as under. (i) i observe that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency had filed the above-said Bill of Entry No.8795836 dated 16,11,2023 on behalf of M/s, Ajay Malik/ Malik Enterprises without an authority letter from the importer.

hat the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency had filed the above-said Bill of Entry No.8795836 dated 16,11,2023 on behalf of M/s, Ajay Malik/ Malik Enterprises without an authority letter from the importer. Thus, I hold that the CB has violated Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018, (ii) In respect of allegation of violation of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, 1 observe that the Importer established a clear and genuine character to the Applicant’s Agency by giving genuine documents for the first shipment and it was cleared smoothly without any problems. Thereafter, the importer again approached the Applicant for clearance of this shipment. It is a well-planned conspiracy by the importer, to defraud the Government. Further, the CB had co-operated with the investigation agency as and when called upon, Page 11 of 19

DIN-20240768MFOOO0222AE8 prior to h. arrest and has continued afterward. FurthV, I rely on the order of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the matter of Priya Hemant Randarkar Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai reported vide 2021 (4) TMI 875 - CESTAT Mumbai. As per the cited order, when the CB is not aware ofWre smuggling activity of the importers, he has no role in the smuggling activity. Further, I such cases, there is no possibility for the CB to bring it to the notice of the Deputy C§mmissioner of Customs (DC) or Assistant Commissioner of Customs (AC) about the misd$rlaration of imported goods involving smuggling. The relevant part of the same is reprodHced hereunder. Violl of gold it lnvestlg I in the dc the dOCL for the rI of the HI in whicl by Ms.

ut the misd$rlaration of imported goods involving smuggling. The relevant part of the same is reprodHced hereunder. Violl of gold it lnvestlg I in the dc the dOCL for the rI of the HI in whicl by Ms. I 04.04. was rlOL CB to 4ssfstal goods conclUL Lion of Regulation 10(d) ibid - HELD THAT:- in the instant case, the srnuggling imported consignment was found by the department only on the basis of speci Pc ion conducted by the DRI authorities, and it was a case of concealment of gold lured imported goods. It is also a fact that there was no misdeclaration in any of 'ents or in the imported goods. Hence, the appellants CB cannot be found fault tson that they did not advise their client importer to comply with the provisions [ The act of smuggling is a conspiracy created by the smuggling syndicate there was no role of appellants CB. Further, the voluntary statement given ’riya Hemant Bandarkar, Proprietor of the appellants CB firm on \1 9 clearly show that such smuggling activity in the imported consignment :nown to the appellants CB. Thus, there is no possibility for the appellants -ing it to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DC) or t Commissioner of Customs (AC) about the misdeclaration of imported tvol'ing smuggling of gold ' the violation of Regulation 10(d) ibid, as td in the impugned order is not sustainable, In info FmI which Furthe, gclrljcll hold ti lw of the above, it appears that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency has no prior Ian about the illegal import of restricted/prohibited items i.e.

stainable, In info FmI which Furthe, gclrljcll hold ti lw of the above, it appears that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency has no prior Ian about the illegal import of restricted/prohibited items i.e. Ganja/Marijuana restricted/prohibited as per Sections 8(c) r/w 23(b) of the NDPS Act/ 1985. it also appears that the CB had not conn{ved with the importer by concealing the \arijuana and had not aided & abetted in the wrongdoings of the importer. Thus, 1 \t the CB has not violated Regulation 10(d) of the fBLR, 2018, (Ut ) From reg u/al made corrie dilige1 re/erel has nI 'ain reading of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 it can be seen that this :on does not obligate the CHA/CB to look into such information which may be 'ailable to them by the importer/exporter. Further, I fInd that nothing adverse has record to allege that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency had/did not exercise due :e to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with re to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. Hence, I hold that the CB violated Regulation 10(e) of the CBI,R, 2018, (iP) It is auth' obligl Servi, clien infor
gentI inde, Luck: ?rtinent to mention here that the CB acts as an interface between Customs tUes and the trade viz, importer/exporter. The Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 bes him to “verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and \s Tax IdenUpcation Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his rt the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or Paffon; ”.

EC) number, Goods and \s Tax IdenUpcation Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his rt the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or Paffon; ”. In the present case, I observe that the CB has failed to verify the 'eness of the functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, 'ndent, authentic documents, data or information. Thus, I find that the CB M/s. Clearing Agency has violated Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018." 12. The inquiry I the Inquiry C)fficer1 17(6) of the CBLI opportunlty to rept leport dated 25.06.2024 on the alleged irregularities by the CB was prepared by copy of the above report was sent to the CB on 27.06.2024 as per Regulation 2018. Accordingly, the CB M/s Lucky Clearing Agency was given an Isent their case to the CorrurLissioner of Customs, Pune. RECORDS OF pIRsoNAL HEARING: - 13. Mr. Nara),, attended the PH reiterated the sa] the Inquiry Offic] 16.11.2023 to subt and would subt importer had not [1 Kharayat, Partner and G-Card holder of M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency had )n 03.07.2024. During the hearing, he submitted a written submission and

1. In addition, he also reiterated the submissions dated 12.06.2024 made before '. Further, he submitted that he had telephonically called the importer on it the Authorization Letter, the importer informed him that he was out of town the same by the next day via e-mail when he reached Delhi. However, the bubmitted the same and had not contacted to the applicant and after 06.30 PM Page 12 of 19

nformed him that he was out of town the same by the next day via e-mail when he reached Delhi. However, the bubmitted the same and had not contacted to the applicant and after 06.30 PM Page 12 of 19

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 the mobile no. of the importer was not reachable. Due to this, the applicant had not taken the Authorization Letter from the Importer. Further, the applicant submitted that he has an unblemished career of over 27 years in the clearing business. In addition, he also submitted that 06 employees are working under him; there is no other means of livelihood with him and no sources of income and all the family members of him and other employees depend upon his business and his business work. Further, he requested to take a lenient view and drop the proceedings against him SUBMISSIONS OF CUSTOMS BROKER: - 14. The charged Cusl-elms Broker M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency (CB -Nio,-']1/11'13), in their written submissions as well as oral, during the personal hearing on 03.07.2024 inter alia submitted that • With respect to the findings in para 18(i) of the inquiry report holding the applicant in violation of RegulatIon 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018, the applicant wishes to clarify his submissions by stating that the Importer approached M/s Bhagwat Group for the booking from Thailand as well as clearing on paying higher charges. Once the Shipment arrived in India, he once again sent the Invoice, Packing List, Airway Bill Copy and sent the contact information of local forwarder M/s Bhagwat Group on the Applicant’s email ID CHA1113@gmail.com.

t arrived in India, he once again sent the Invoice, Packing List, Airway Bill Copy and sent the contact information of local forwarder M/s Bhagwat Group on the Applicant’s email ID CHA1113@gmail.com. Accordingly, the Applicant’s employee Mr. Subhash Tambe uploaded the documents on the portal WWW.ICEG ATE.GOV.IN, but this time, the Bill of entry could not be generated due to an error code in the validity of GST. The same was communicated to the importer and the applicant informed him to return the consignment back to Thailand through the same forwarder. The importer was silent for a week’s time and then again approached the Applicant with IEC, GST, PAN and Bank AD code from one of his other companies i.e. M/s Malik Enterprises and requested the Applicant to clea1 the consignment. The Airway Bill was changed by M/S Bhagwat Group from Smart Moves to M/S Malik Enterprises upon receiving instructions from the importer. M/s Bhagwat Group is the prime suspect in the facilitation of the said importer and made the applicant a scapegoat and easy target. It is pertinent to note that, M/s Bhagwat Group was the Freight Forwarder for the importer and in direct contact with the importer.

e said importer and made the applicant a scapegoat and easy target. It is pertinent to note that, M/s Bhagwat Group was the Freight Forwarder for the importer and in direct contact with the importer. M/s Bhagwat Group sent a specific Email to the Applicant instructing them to upload the documents from M/S Malik Enterprises as per the changed Airway Bill which was also sent by them. e With respect to the findings in para 18 (iv) of the inquiry report holding the applicant in violation of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, the applicant wishes to clarify his submissions by stating that there is no doubt that an obligation has been cast on the CHA/CB under the CBLR so as to ensure the documents as required for the purposes of enabling the import are forwarded to the Customs. In fact, they are the link between the importer and the Customs department therefore has an important and responsible role to play while providing their services. The Applicant stated that it was a well-planned conspiracy by the importer to defraud the Government. The manner in which he indulged in fraudulently fabricating the documents and on the basis thereof he managed to obtain bogus PAN card, IEC code from DGFT and on that basis he opened a Bank Account. Neither the Income Tax Department verified the genuineness of the election voter card before issuing the PAN card nor DGFT while issuing the IEC code raised any objections on the authenticity of the documents. Even the Bank officials before opening the bank account did not verify the documents or the identity of Sourav Raha and/or AjaY Malik.

code raised any objections on the authenticity of the documents. Even the Bank officials before opening the bank account did not verify the documents or the identity of Sourav Raha and/or AjaY Malik. In this scenario to attribute any responsibility on the CHA to have verified the authenticitY of these documents or the identity of the exporter seems to be unfeasible. It is absolutely impossible for a CHA who is not even a public servant to act with such diligence that he could ascertain the veracitY of the documents which even the departmental authorities could not ascertain and unearth the importer’s modus operandi. The Applicant most humbly submitted that it was a pre-planned modus operandi which the impofter had adopted that could not have been detected in the ordinary course. The Applicant is placing heavy reliance upon on the judgement passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Pagp 13 of 1 q

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 Appellate (Airport & judgments) “11. Regulation 1' independent, client is and the estabhslreri by rnethocis ccm be that the CB as the CB ccm of his client, this required to veriFy autlrentic doctn'trents oy this clause client to ensure the IEC inciicates of tIle of these docrtnrenl discussed abor*e, In this regard 7& Ilate tI Int tIle Pri- 77cfpa/ Be IICIt o/ tllis T)-ihl IIInI //7 tIle case o/ M MaNi ! Worldtvide Log#Mcs as C011unissioller of Cllst0111s (Airport & General) [2022-TIOL-603- CESTAT-DELI /+id as foUotvs'. "3 1 .

Ile Pri- 77cfpa/ Be IICIt o/ tllis T)-ihl IIInI //7 tIle case o/ M MaNi ! Worldtvide Log#Mcs as C011unissioller of Cllst0111s (Airport & General) [2022-TIOL-603- CESTAT-DELI /+id as foUotvs'. "3 1 . The contrrrtrotts has not changed the abor>e does not get his Customs Broker, responsibilities CUstom-IS Broker subsequent 12, yve also note Imf in a receILt jtLdgelILe IIt of tILe High Court of DelIIi I'm EILe case of N aman GILpta us. ComIn{ss£o#'r of Cllstollls Airport fW (C) 15808/20227 ILeld as foILollls:- "20. It is tlUFS Broker is exporter after The fnrtheT are aspects not the case of exporters it'ere that the stretched to it such, as a traceable, after Further, the Tribunal Ge 'a whl IIZ) all f/IIII fic kIINe/l 27 enilZoyed appeiiIzr Pndlpocl£77ze7- 7ligation docunzelfs, cia TeqtLlrl he i amityAd4ess respons liZ sl£roellia71ce paragr47/1, 'rlrlrerrts 12 IS tron lie INer errtitl, t )’om the legal position as enrmciateci in KauaI Trauels (supra), Custours to proceed on the basis that IEC tIns conte to be generated in fmotLr of the bad<g70unci check having been condtuteci bv the custonn authorities, Hmt may have been captured and form part of IEC Registration of mr importer IIme to be ret$ect by aLe customs authorities tlwurselves. Moreorler, it is also Departw lent that IEC, GSTIN, PAN & Authorized Dealer Code of tIle genuine.

rm part of IEC Registration of mr importer IIme to be ret$ect by aLe customs authorities tlwurselves. Moreorler, it is also Departw lent that IEC, GSTIN, PAN & Authorized Dealer Code of tIle genuine. In tIle aforesaid backcirop the Court in !<anal Travels (supra) held of the CHA under Section 13 (e) of the CHALR, 2004 cannot be obliged to rrndertake a frwther backgrormd check of the client, As Broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters roere not issuance of ' Let EIport Orders’ mci export of the goods out of tIle country . apHroprhfe detaIl lol Ii I/ie oblig, 011 let llg CI,15l7715 New Delhi in World Lille Cargo Movers Vs. Coltrrlrissioney df Ct£stoms, V , NCH, I(II, Airport, Neto Delhi (in addition to previously cited mentioned therein that, requires the Crtstonrs Brokey to redby tIle identity of the client using reliabLe, doclulrents, data or inforr IIation. 111 oUter rvc)TdS, he should knolo lvho the It calrlrot be sonle $ctitious peTSon. As per tIle Regulation, Has identity can be t, reliable, nnt}l.enhc: a) doctulwlrts; b) data; or c) information. Any of tlrese by the CUStOl-IIS Broker to lerOy the identity of its client. It is not necessary has to only conduct a physical ve7ipcation or launclt nn inuestigation. So long ts lolrich are independent, reliable and authentic to establish the identity is AtIPILed. In ndchtiolr, under Regulation 10(11) the Customs Broker is $mctioning of tIle client at dIe declared address using reliable, independent, data or inform-ration.

o establish the identity is AtIPILed. In ndchtiolr, under Regulation 10(11) the Customs Broker is $mctioning of tIle client at dIe declared address using reliable, independent, data or inform-ration. This responsibility, again, can be juLPUect using {nfornration so long as they are reliable, independent and mtthentic. Nothing in tIle 10 C/51779/2021 Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the they are fnuctioning at the pyeudses. We jud HInt both the GSTIN ns rveU as address of dIe client , This in itself is independent data to ue7iby tIle correctness of the client. PVe also note Hmt there is notldng on record to sltoro that eitlte1 rvere fake or forged. Therefore, 07rce ueri+cation of tIle address is conrplete as responsibility cast on the appellant under Regulation 10(n) stands fut$Ueci." by of the Custours Broker rmcie7 Regulation 10(n) cioes not include keeping a on the client to ensure tlrat 1u continues to operate Pom HInt address and operations. Therefore, Olrce ueripcntion of tIle address is conrplete, as discussed in if the client nroues to a nero prenhses and does not inform the authorities or rulnndeci, suc TI act or omission of the client cannot be held against the VVe, therefore, fmd that the Cttstonrs Broker has not failed in dischargIng his Regulation 10(n). The hllpugned order is not correct in concluding that ate violated Regulation 10(n) becnrlse the exporters roeye found to not exist during by tIle officers.” relied on his previous reply. Page 14 of 19

hllpugned order is not correct in concluding that ate violated Regulation 10(n) becnrlse the exporters roeye found to not exist during by tIle officers.” relied on his previous reply. Page 14 of 19

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: - 15. 1 have carefully gone through the entire case proceedings of the Show Cause Notice issued on 03.06.2024 and the inquiry report dated 25.06.2024 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Pune Customs and all the written submissions made by the Customs Broker. 16. Issues before me for decision are as follows: i) Whether there are violations of Regulations 10(a), .10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 on the part of the Customs Broker M/ s Lucky Clearing Agency. ii) Whether the CB License is required to be revoked, or the security deposit be forfeited Ol any penalty to be imposed or otherwise. 17. In reply to the said SCN & Inquiry report, I observe that the CB had filed the said Bill of Entry of the present consignment based on the documents provided to them by the importer. The CB submitted that the Importer established a clear and genuine character to the Applicant’s Agency by giving genuine documents for the first shipment and it was cleared smoothly without any problems, The CB further submitted that it was a well-planned colrspiracy by the importer, to defraud the Government. The CB also subrnitted that theY were not involved in any activity that appeared or was found to be in violation of the laws of the land in respect of the subject import consignment or another export-import consignment of the past.

were not involved in any activity that appeared or was found to be in violation of the laws of the land in respect of the subject import consignment or another export-import consignment of the past. They further submitted that they had fully cooperated in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency as & when required. They mentioned that they have been engaged in Customs Clearance for long years & so far no allegations had been levelled on them and they have a clean antecedent. I find merit in the submission of the CB to the extent that they were not aware of the concealment (Ganja/Marijuana) in the said consignment or any mis-declaration. The Inquiry report also does not find any role of the CB in mis-declaration of the goods. In view of the above, I find that there is no evidence on record to establish involvement of the CB in the mis-declaration of the goods declared in the said Bill of Entry. The CB had filed the said Bill of Entry on the basis of documents provided to them by the importer. There is no evidence to show the complicity of CB in the smuggling of said goods i.e. Ganja/ Marijuana. 18.1.

filed the said Bill of Entry on the basis of documents provided to them by the importer. There is no evidence to show the complicity of CB in the smuggling of said goods i.e. Ganja/ Marijuana. 18.1. It was alleged against the CB that they had violated the provisions of Regulation 10(a) of the CBLl{, 2018 which are reproduced herein below: “lO(a) obtain an arrthorisation from each of the cornpanies, finns or individrrals by tolrom he is for the time being employed as a CrLstorns Broker and prodrlce SIICk cult}torisation tvhenever reqttired bu tIle Deplltv Colnmissioner of Ctrstolns or Assistant Commissioner of Crtstoms, as the case lnav be;" In respect of the above-alleged charges, I carefully perused the submissions made by the CB as mentioned in the above Para 9 and Para 14. In this connection, I observe that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency had filed the above-said Bill of Entry No. 8795836 dated 16.11.2023 on behalf of M/s. Ajay Malik/Malik Enterprises without an authority letter from the importer' The Inquiry Report also held that the CB had violated Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018. In view of the above, I also find that the CB had failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018. 18.2.

o held that the CB had violated Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018. In view of the above, I also find that the CB had failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018. 18.2. Further, it was also alleged that CB had failed to advise their client to compIY with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and had thereby violated Regulation 10(d) of the CBI,R/ 2018/ which reads as below: 10(d) “A Cllstollls broker shall advise his client to cornphy with the ptc)visions of the Act, other allied Arts and the r11les and reglrlat ions thereof, and in case of non-compliance, Dnao 1 c; nf 1 a

DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 shall bring the Cor'mnissiortey In respect of CB as mentioned in the CBLR, 2018 and allied Acts and the imported goods of the documents (Ganja/Marijuana) in In this Priya Hemant (4) TMI 875 - CESTAT activity of the possibility for the CB Assistant smuggling. The Commissiorar relevajt Violation of inrported conducted by goods. It is goods. Hence, cLient inrporter created by the appellants imported for the Customs imported colrctrtded ill I find that the that the charges of cannot sustaln in information about restricted/ that the CB had aided & abetteci in Inquiry Report. In 2018 are not 18.3.

for the Customs imported colrctrtded ill I find that the that the charges of cannot sustaln in information about restricted/ that the CB had aided & abetteci in Inquiry Report. In 2018 are not 18.3. Further, it 10(e) of the CBLR, Clltollls :: 7:: 7L : : = lo; ( 'hich // Tage; 10(e) "A In respect mentioned Lf CB as Court in the case Customs House, the case of submitted by the judgments is rllbtter [z£sf077zs, lbove-alleged lbove sta cannotbe fu- Led connectj©, Ban dar-i '4lnnbai importe4 Fo RI?IIla c011sidl7 ///e71 also 'nrlqq ling th U olunt anl C. Ig7z77zeuf cor apr]dI'arlts (DdI or goal he of the above judgements is squarely applicable in the present case. I find of Customs Broker without producing any corroborative evidence, Further, it appears that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency has no prior illegal import of restricted/prohibited items i.e. Ganja/Marijuana which is as per- Sections 8(c) r/ h’ 23(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, it also appears with the importer by concealing the ganja/marijuana and had not wrongdoings of the importer. The same observations are also made in the of the above, I find that violations of the provisions of 10(d) of the CBLR, against the CB. C vance la prohibitel no JLonnived V&W establilled the above-alleged charges, I carefully perused the submissions made by the the above Para 9. In this connection, I rely on the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Kunal Travels Cargo vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) New New Delhi [2017 SCC On Line Del 7683] & Hon'ble Delhi High COIIN in -.iotrer of Customs (General) us.

rder of Hon’ble Delhi High Kunal Travels Cargo vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) New New Delhi [2017 SCC On Line Del 7683] & Hon'ble Delhi High COIIN in -.iotrer of Customs (General) us. KVS Cargo [2019(365) ELT 395], which were in their submission, mentioned at Para 9. 1 find that the ratio of the above applicable in the present case. Further, from plain reading of Regulation ICdAIrport Comm squ4}ely to the notice of the DeprrtV Comrnissioner of Clrstoms or Assistant as the case may be;" charges, I carefully peruseci the submissions made by the Para 9. 1 find that the CB had complied with Regulation 10(d) of the advibed the importer to comply with the provisions of the Act, othe1 and regulations thereof. The allegation of mis-declaration of the said made against them as they filed the import documents only on the basis by the importer. The CB was not supposedly aware of the concealment said consignment or any mis-declaration. I rely on the order of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the matter of Vs. Pr. Conultiss toner of Customs (General), Mrtmbai reported ville 2024 As per the cited order, when the CB is not aware of the smuggling he has no role in the smuggling activity.

in the matter of Vs. Pr. Conultiss toner of Customs (General), Mrtmbai reported ville 2024 As per the cited order, when the CB is not aware of the smuggling he has no role in the smuggling activity. Further, in such cases, there is no bring it to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DC) Ol of Customs (AC) about the mis-declaration of imported goods involving part of the same is reproduced hereunder: tion 10(d) ibid - HELD THAT:- in tIle instant case, tILe smw8gling of gold ill t Ions found by Ute departlllent only on Ute basis of specifc inl>estigation DRI authorities, and it Ions n cose of concer! Intent of gold in the decLared intporteci fact that tILere Ions rIO nriscieclnrat ion iII any of tlle dOCLUlunts or in tIle inlported appellants CB caIn-rot be found fault for tIle reason HInt drew did not advise tluil conTly lott it tILe provisions of tIle Act. The act of smuggling is a conspiracy syndicate in tv]rich there was no role of appellants CB. Frr7the7, statement given by Ms. Priya Hemant Banda7kay, Proprietor of the finn on 04.04.2019 clearly show that srrch srnrtggliug activity in the was not known to the appellants CB.

appellants CB. Frr7the7, statement given by Ms. Priya Hemant Banda7kay, Proprietor of the finn on 04.04.2019 clearly show that srrch srnrtggliug activity in the was not known to the appellants CB. TInts, there is no possibility CB to bring it to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Assistant Comrnissioner of CIIstorms (AC) aborrt the misdeclaration oJ involving smrrggl ing of gold - the violation of Regrtlation IQ(d) ibid, as hnprtgneci order is not sustainable. alleged against the CB that they had violated the provisions of Regulation which are reproduced herein below: - broker shall exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of amy he in}tarts to a client luNn reference to any work related to clearance of Page 16 of 19

i t + DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 it can be seen that this regulation does not obligate the CHA/CB to look into such information which may be made available to them by the importer/exporter. Further, I find that nothing adverse has come on record to allege that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency had/did not exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. The same observations are also made in the Inquiry Report. In view of the above, I find that violations of the provisions of 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 are not established against the CB. 18.4. It was alleged against the CB that theY had violated the provisions of Regulations 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018.

ions of the provisions of 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 are not established against the CB. 18.4. It was alleged against the CB that theY had violated the provisions of Regulations 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. In respect of the above-alleged charges, I carefully perused the submissions made by the CB as mentioned in the above-mentioned Para 9 and Para 14. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the CB acts as an interface between Customs authorities and the trade viz. importer/exporter. The Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 obligates him to “ verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) nrrmber, Goods and Services Tax Identification Nrunber (GSTIN), identity of his client and frrnctioning of his client at the declared address by lrsing reliable, independent, arrthentic doclnnents, data or infonnation". In the present case, I observe that the CB has failed to verify the genuineness of the functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. The same observations are also made in the Inquiry Report. Thus, I find that the CB M/s. Lucky Clearing Agency has violated Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. 19. I find force in the following Case Laws as these are applicable to the case under discussion: a) Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s FREIGHT LOGISTICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER or CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW DELHI AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL) COMMISSIONERATE.

New Delhi in the matter of M/s FREIGHT LOGISTICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER or CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW DELHI AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL) COMMISSIONERATE. NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S FREIGHT LOGISTICS, reported as Customs Appeal No. 50944 of 2021 & Crrstoms Appeal No. 51839 of 2021, Order dated 02.02.2024 stating - “Levy of penalty on Crlstorns Broker - Forfeitrwe of the secrlritV deposit - Role of the employee of the CB - illegal export of proltibited goods - allegations pel+aiming to Reg11latioll IO(a), 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - Doctrine of proportionality - T–IELD THAT:- There appears to be no doubt tInt j-arId has beelr colllntitted bv manipttlating tIle docurlnnts to enable the illegal export of proltibited goods but there is no evidence to say dtat tIle appellant connhled or runs art.are of tIle modus-operandi. Holtlerler, it cannot be ignore HInt by uirt11e Of a license granted rnlder the Regulations, a customs broker -is eligible and elrtitle to caTrV on the lvork of clenyance of goods for inrport and export. As tnid dc)lon iII various decisionsf CHA occutues n 1’erV inwortrInt position in tIle CltStOl'IIS Holtse. He is stlpposed to safeguard tIle interests of botl1 tIn inrporters rInd tIle Customs and tlrerefoye a lot of trust is kept iII CHA by tIle u11porters or expoYteYS as lodI as by the NOBLE AGENCY VERSUS COMMISSIC)NER OF CUSTOMS/ MUMBAI [2002 (2) TM.1 171 _ LEGATf MUMBAi].

le Customs and tlrerefoye a lot of trust is kept iII CHA by tIle u11porters or expoYteYS as lodI as by the NOBLE AGENCY VERSUS COMMISSIC)NER OF CUSTOMS/ MUMBAI [2002 (2) TM.1 171 _ LEGATf MUMBAi]. Therefore/ tIle nppellant itInn he adnhts HInt IIe did not ueviby the address of tIle exporting colnprnuy as Oleg 71’ere ill A111rttsnr and also did not False anY qu Jrly for non prc;auction of the nut II)riznt toll pol'It tIle exporter conrpnlrv IInd violated tIle obligations cast on a custonrs broker under tIle Reglilations , Considering the extent of uiotation Hmt can be attribttted to tlle appellant nnd the fact noted by tIle Conlnt iss toner that active role ions played by Slt7i Krtnlod Kl-mlar CltouctllanJ/ enWtoVee of flu CB and role of CB has not come out anvlvlleye hl tIle investigation as also CB llns taken immediate action against t]le eTttplovee, applying the doctrine of proportiolrahH/ dle fortihlre of wcuritV deposit is fat beyond proportiolr rnId inlposition of pennltIJ of Rs, 50,000/- is sufficie11t The impugned order is lllodiped to tIle extent Hmt forfettllre of tlle securitY deposit needs to be set aside and onLy the order lvhel’ebu the penalty has been iltposed is ajfiY111ed - appeal allolued ilt pnYt Revocation of Cltstolns Broker License - Revemte appeal for not Yevc)king the LIcense - Held that:_ We do not find that tlle appeUnut llnd anu knolllledge tllnt illegnl exports roere ntten.qlted, or there lvns anu actil.e or pnssiue Pcititnhon on tlli part of tIle nppellaut.

e LIcense - Held that:_ We do not find that tlle appeUnut llnd anu knolllledge tllnt illegnl exports roere ntten.qlted, or there lvns anu actil.e or pnssiue Pcititnhon on tlli part of tIle nppellaut. Tlwre lons no jnang .of any 111nla pde on tIle part of CHA sucll tllnt trllst o-pernhng betlvc?eu CHA nun olstonls nutllotitles lvas vioLated oy {rritablv lost for frtture operation of tIle licelrse

• Reuen1.Ie apIrent disltdssed. pa on 17 nf 1 a

• 4 4 H,„’bl, C£ST,a. Ch,„„,i i„ th, matter of M/s. SOUPARNIKA SHIPPING SERViCES VERSUS PRI$CIPA L COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI WIll COMMISSIONEKATE reported as Cz£StOIllS Appeal No. 40199 o/ 2020 Custollls Appenl No, 40248 o/2020, HPL ORDER Nos. 40019-40020 / 2024 dated 05.01.2024 stating - b) “ R,„„„h,„ ,f c,it„„, B„,k„ U„„„ - f.„f,it„T, ,f „„,Tit!/ i„t,„„t - I,„V ,fp„,.Ity - Snmgghng of Cigarettes - co&rabmd Cigarettes rvere _fc)rnId concealed beltind tIle declared goods - violation of prouisions of Reg4ntions 10 (b), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CB LR, 2018 - enquiny report runs not conrnrunicated toklre nppeUrrra - uiolntion of pltlrciptes of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On going through +e enquiry report and the impugned order and also various statelnents recorded frorlr tIe persons connected including Shri K. V.

ntion of pltlrciptes of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On going through +e enquiry report and the impugned order and also various statelnents recorded frorlr tIe persons connected including Shri K. V. P7abltakaran, proprietor of the Customs B70ke4- Tlrorrgh enqtliry report has absolved the Crtstolns Broker from all the charges leveUe4\against hbn, the reasons a>ere not accepted, the enqrliry report zvas not commlmicated + tIle appellant, violating the principles of natlnal jrtstice. The Hon’DIe HI COMMISSIONI AIRPORT, NE' HoILse Agents House. They are look into ilrforun gel IILi}lene ss of melttioned, there done by CrLstollr, re#ect tnLtl-I of L nrell s ren - //go{ tIle llzts-decZnratl In tIle case of . (l&G) [2014 (3, reuocation oJ CJ labelled as gta precedent cases I fncihtation of Regulations , The Custolus than four years COMMIS sro. MUMBAI], II clenralrces toed license of the The revocatiol', livelihood of Custollrs Brokl since, tItus, al Ctrstollrs Bro-i punishment fR As tIle secttr1 Horoer>er, intl termed as excl Appeal nllorut In view of t] 20. 21.

toed license of the The revocatiol', livelihood of Custollrs Brokl since, tItus, al Ctrstollrs Bro-i punishment fR As tIle secttr1 Horoer>er, intl termed as excl Appeal nllorut In view of t] 20. 21. 1, the Con#Ussioner of Customs, Pune, in exercise of the power conferred under the Customs Broker Liknsing Reg„1,ti,„,, 2018, h„eby o,d,„ as follows, DIN-20240768MF0000222AE8 It Court of Delhi in tIle case of KUN AL TRAVELS (CARGO) VERSUS OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT & GENERAL) NEW/ CUSTOMS HOUSE, IGI DELHI [2017 (3) TMT 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURTI has held tInt Cust011rs only processing agent of docunlents for clenrnnce of goods through Custonrs 'hot ilrspectors to it'L’tEll gelrtri11eltess of transaction, and tltere is no obligation to Flo/l frotIt exporter/iltlporter. It is Olrerolts to erpect CHA to inquire into and tiedby Code giuell by cliellt for enclr intport/eIport trnnsaction. WIen suclr code is Is a presulnption that appropriate backgroturd check in tI-lis regard rvoulci have been Fall f/toriffes, III absence of knolllledge that goods llrelIHoned in shipping bills did not lrsignllrent souglrt to be exported, CHA or its pyoprietor cannot be attributed roitll Is did lrot corroborate lott II cieclnrntiorr in slipping bills, it cannot be deented to be 11 bI CHA ;. ASHIANA CARGO SERVICES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FMI 562 - DELHI HIGH COURTI, tIle Hon’bk High Court of Delhi Ims Ireld tInt \A license is just Wed only in cases of aggravating factors that alloro inFaction to be '.

S VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FMI 562 - DELHI HIGH COURTI, tIle Hon’bk High Court of Delhi Ims Ireld tInt \A license is just Wed only in cases of aggravating factors that alloro inFaction to be '. Though it is not possible to lllnke exhaustive list of such aggravating factors, rz07t' tlrat revocation of licence IUIS been upheld rollere tltere runs an elen lent of active fraction, i.e., a $nding of nwt'is ren, or a gross and Fagrant uiolation of CHA ’oker license runs suspelrded lide F.No. R-498/CHA dated 15.07.2019, thus, nrore 7ns sed since tIle tillle of srlspension. In the case of KS. SAVVANT & CO. VERSUS TER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), MUMBAI [20'13 (12) TM1 119 - CESTA-1", tons Iteld tlrat nlere sigllil-tg of doculllellts bv a CHA ruotad not prot?e tltat tIle ultdeTtnken bv tIle CHA lula punislrnulrt JoT dIe saule could not be yetlocation of IA as that rvottlci be extrenle rnId llarsl1 If Customs Brokers License is too itash a punish7r lent lvlhch is bound to affect tIle '.e Crtstol’Its Broker nltd Iris ertrplouees alrd by taking into coltsiderntion that tile License runs suspended on 15.07,2019 and tItus nrore tItan four years’ bure eLapsed reuocation is set aside - tIle Custollrs nut]rority nie directed to issue / reI?it?e t]le s License as tIle Broker runs out of Business for uk)re tItan four years roh iCII is enough Ure lapses on his part, deposit runs confiscated, ordering for its conpscation again cannot be sustailred, lsiHort of a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18(1) of CBLR, 2018 cruutot be ;sir'e.

Ure lapses on his part, deposit runs confiscated, ordering for its conpscation again cannot be sustailred, lsiHort of a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18(1) of CBLR, 2018 cruutot be ;sir'e. As sudt, tIle penalty of Rs.30,000/- iltlposed is up]reId. in part . ’ above, I pass the following order: - ORDER Page 18 of 19

+b DIN-20240768MFOOO0222AE8 (i) (ii) (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) upon the CB firm under Regulation 18(1) of the CBLR, 2018 for contravening provisions of 10(a) & 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018. I drop the charges of violation of contravening provisions of 10(d) and 10(e) of the CBLlt, 2018 initiated vide Show Cause Notice No. 02/ 2024-25 dated 03.06.2024. In view of the nature of the violations, I do not revoke the license of the CB i.e. M/s Lucky Clearing Agency. 22. This order is being issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the Customs Broker or any other person(s) firm(s) etc. under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rules/ Regulations framed there under or any other law for the time being in force. I#DW' lz.I . }At (YASHODHAN WANAGE) Commissioner of Customs Pune To, M/s Lucky Clearing Agency, 59, Goa Street, Dr. Sunderlal Bahl Path, 31, Kakal Building, 2nd Floor, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. Copy to: 1. The Chief Commissioner, Pune Zone. 2. The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Ballard Mumbai-400001 3. / All A.Cs/D.Cs incharge of ICD/CFS under the jurisdiction of Pune, Customs. v EDI Section, NCH, Mumbai. 5. Office Copy. 6.

issioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Ballard Mumbai-400001 3. / All A.Cs/D.Cs incharge of ICD/CFS under the jurisdiction of Pune, Customs. v EDI Section, NCH, Mumbai. 5. Office Copy. 6. Master File Estate, Page 19 of 19