Page 205 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] MAA KAMAKHYA ENTERPRISE v. PR. COMMR. OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA 595
Station. However, the exporter had not furnished the Bank Realisation Certifi-
cates (BRCs) being the export proceed within the stipulated period of the Draw-
back Rules. Since furnishing of BRCs is the responsibility of the exporter, letters
were issued to him in this regard but there was no response. The issue was inves-
tigated and it was seen that out of the fifteen shipping bills, details of the export
in respect of the consignment against three shipping bills were not available in
the departmental and Custodian (CWC) records. In other words the goods cov-
ered by these three shipping bills had obviously not been exported.
5. It has also been alleged that there was an aberration of the prescribed
procedure and the Customs Broker had manipulated the system to facilitate the
exporter by giving him the documents to claim the export benefits without en-
suring that the exports had actually taken place. The Customs Broker is respon-
sible for handling all the documents on behalf of the exporter till the goods are
actually exported and the ‘Cross Border Certificate’ is given by the proper officer
based on which the EGM is generated.
6. Pursuant to the opportunity of hearing, the appellant’s licence was
ordered to remain suspended under Regulation 16(2) of CBLR, 2018. Being ag-
grieved, the appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that
the provisions of Regulation 16(1) of the CBLR, 2018 is not at all applicable in the
appellant’s case. He further contends that there is no violation of provisions of
Regulation 10(d) and Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018. Learned Advocate
strongly contended that they have always complied with the provisions by keep-
ing liaison with the local exporter. Moreover before undertaking the job from the
exporter, they have verified his address and citizenship from his Ration Card
and PAN Card. His antecedents were also verified from the character certificate
issued by jurisdictional Pradhan, Duttapukur-I Gram Panchayat and the ‘Credit
Information Report’ issued by the Standard Chartered Bank, 19, N.S. Road, Kol-
kata-700001 Branch. Thereafter he obtained his letter of authorization dated 1-12-
2014 along with photocopy of his IEC issued by the DGFT, Kolkata on 13-1-2014.
There is no evidence to establish any violation of any provision of Regulation 10
of CBLR, 2018 by the appellant in the course of handling export consignment of
M/s. S.K. Traders in the year 2015. The entire allegations are based on assump-
tion and presumptions.
8. Learned Advocate further contends that it is not possible for the Cus-
toms Broker to keep a track with the post export events such as submission of
Bank Realisation Certificate in time by the exporter. The job of the Customs Bro-
ker concludes with the successful clearance of the export cargo under proper
documentation and supervision of the customs officers. He vehemently argued
that it is a pertinent question that how the department has paid the duty draw
back to the exporters if the BRCs are not submitted in time. So, this case is not an
appropriate case where immediate action is necessary under Regulation 16(1) of
CBLR, 2018.
9. Learned Advocate further contended that at the time of personal
hearing on 3-6-2019, they have submitted photocopies of the three shipping bills
under Investigation viz. (1) 1607615, dated 5-7-2015, (2) 4113068, dated 15-11-
2015 and (3) 4378465, dated 25-11-2015 along with the related Invoice and pack-
ing list. Each set of such documents where the Exporter was M/s. S.K. Traders,
clearly shows that the Customs Officers of Petrapole LCS have properly assessed
them and given the ‘Let Export Order’. And then the export goods have crossed
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  205