JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 03.09.2021 (Final Order No. C/A/5179/2021-CU – hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’). The impugned order was rendered in an appeal preferred by the appellant assailing an order dated 11.06.2021, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Customs Act’), whereby the Customs Broker License of the appellant was revoked and his security deposit was forfeited.

Additionally, the appellant was mulcted with a penalty of 50,000/-.

2. According to the respondent, the appellant is guilty of misconduct as he had permitted misdeclaration of goods by the exporter (M/s Balaji International) and attempted to facilitate export of goods otherwise restricted at the material time.

3. The appellant is a holder of CHA License No. AHPPJ4199PCH001 and had filed a Shipping Bill (being Shipping Bill no. 2867653 dated 28.05.2022) for export of consignment of ‘Glucose Test Strips’ classifying the same under CTH 90279090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. According to the respondent, the said goods fell under classification of ITC HS code 38.22 and at the material time, the export of such goods was restricted by virtue of Notification No.59/2015-20 dated 04.04.2020.

4. A show cause notice dated 22.12.2020 was issued to the appellant by the Commissioner (Airport & General) alleging contravention of the provisions of Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (hereafter ‘the CBLR, 2018’) and proposing revocation of the appellant’s license and forfeiture of the security deposit under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018.

5. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer (hereafter ‘IO’) was appointed to inquire into the allegations. He submitted his report dated 22.03.2021. The IO found that the appellant had violated the provisions of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 read with erstwhile Regulation 11(e) of CBLR, 2013. He noted that both the importer as well as the appellant had, in their statements, admitted that the goods in question ‘Glucose Test Strips’ contained a reagent and this was mentioned in the manual enclosed with the goods. Therefore, the goods in question fell under the classification CTH38220090. In its statement, the appellant had also stated that he was not clear, whether the goods in question (‘Glucose Test Strips’) fell under the category of diagnostic reagents, however, he conceded that he had processed the Shipping Bill without going into the specification of goods and therefore, the same had resulted in failure to classify the goods under the apposite CTH.

6. In view of the aforesaid findings, the IO concluded that the appellant was guilty of failing to exercise due diligence at the time of filing of Shipping Bill in question and had failed to advise the exporter to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act.

7. The IO’s report dated 22.03.2021 was accepted and the appellant’s license was revoked.

8. As noted above, the appellant filed the appeal (being Custom Appeal No. 50749/2021) before the learned Tribunal. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the principal arguments advanced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal were related to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass the order revoking the license. The principal case run by the appellant before the learned Tribunal was that since his license was initially suspended and the suspension was revoked, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revoke the license under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018.

9. However, the record indicates that the appellant had also raised various other issues which, prima facie, do not seem to have been discussed by the learned Tribunal.

10. In the aforesaid context, the