J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Act’), impugning an order dated 26.03.2021 (Final Order No. C/A/51174/2021-CU [DB] – hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’) in Customs Appeal No. 50618/2019.

2. The Appellant had filed the aforementioned appeal before the learned Tribunal impugning the order-in-original dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Airport and General), New Delhi (hereafter ‘the Commissioner’). In terms of the said order dated 04.02.2019, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CUSAA 2/2022 Page 1 of 21 Commissioner had (i) revoked the Appellant’s Customs Broker License (CHA License No. R-12/DEL/CUS/2009 - hereafter ‘the CB License’); (ii) directed forfeiture of the security deposit of ₹ 75,000/- furnished by the Appellant; and (iii) imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the Appellant.

3. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is that whether the Appellant, under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (hereafter ‘the CBLR, 2018’) read with Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereafter ‘the CBLR, 2013’), is liable for reporting an offence committed in relation to goods stored in the bonded warehouse, after the same have been imported and the professional role of the Customs Broker in clearance of the goods had ended.

4. The aforesaid question arises for consideration in this appeal in the following context:

4.1. The Appellant is a proprietorship firm of Mr. Diva Kant Jha, who was a Customs Broker and at the material time was holding the CB License, which was then valid up to 09.03.2019. The said license was issued under Regulation 9(1) of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (hereafter ‘CHALR, 2004’).

4.2. The Appellant, in normal course of trade, was authorized by (i) M/s Accturists Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s Spark Exports, and (iii) M/s Horrens Exim (collectively referred to as ‘importer firms’) for import of goods. The Appellant on the basis of documents received from the said entities, carried out KYC for the said firms.

4.3. The Appellant thereafter on various dates between 25.04.2017 to 15.06.2017, filed nine (9) bills of entry pertaining to M/s Accturists Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CUSAA 2/2022 Page 2 of 21 Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd, five (5) bills of entry pertaining to M/s Spark Exports and two (2) bills of entry pertaining to M/s Horrens Exim.

4.4. All of the aforesaid nineteen (19) bills of entry (hereafter ‘B/E’) were warehousing bill of entry under Section 59 of the Act and were filed at various ports. Out of the nineteen (19) B/Es filed by the Appellant, three (3) B/Es were pending clearance at ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi, at the relevant time.

4.5. It is the case of the Appellant that he had met an individual namely Mr. Lalit Dongra on behalf of M/s Accturists Overseas (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. and all enquiries regarding filing of B/Es were made by one Mr. Sanjeev Maggu, who held himself out as the Chief Manager of all the three (3) importer firms.

4.6. On 14.07.2017, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereafter ‘DRI’) received information that the said importer firms were evading customs duty by diverting the imported goods stored in the customs bonded warehouse, into domestic market without payment of applicable custom duty. It was also informed that forged documents have been relied upon by the said importer firms to show the re-export of the warehoused goods. Pursuant thereto, searches were conducted and statements of various persons including the proprietor of the Appellant i.e., Mr. Diva Kant Jha, was recorded by DRI on 14.07.2017 under Section 108 of the Act.

4.7. The DRI thereafter forwarded its investigation report dated 10.05.2018 in this matter to the Commissioner. In view of the report, a show cause notice dated 10.