CUSAA 2/2022Page 1 of 21

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 25.09.2023

+

CUSAA 2/2022

D S CARGO AGENCY

..... Appellant

Through:

Mohd. Faraz Anees, Mr. Ajay Kumar,

Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Anushree Narain, SC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

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

Digitally Signed

By:Rashmi Dabas

Signing Date:24.09.2023

03:01:18

Signature Not Verified

CUSAA 2/2022Page 2 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

Digitally Signed

By:Rashmi Dabas

Signing Date:24.09.2023

03:01:18

Signature Not Verified

CUSAA 2/2022Page 3 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