##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-OS:3534-DB

14 cuapp2-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TRUSHA

TUSHAR

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

MOHITE

Digitally signed by

TRUSHA TUSHAR

MOHITE

Date: 2026.02.06 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.2 OF 2025

16:53:51 +0530

Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) .. Appellant

Versus

A.B.Paul & Co. .. Respondent

Mr. M.P.Sharma a/w Ms.Mamta Omle, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr.Anil Balani a/w Ms.Priyasha Pawar, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2026

P. C.

1. The above Appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the Order

dated 2^nd June 2023 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate

Tribunal, Mumbai (‘CESTAT’) in Appeal No.86451 of 2022. The Appeal

before the CESTAT was filed by the Respondent Assessee herein. According

to the Revenue, the impugned Order of the CESTAT gives rise to the

following substantial questions of law:

“a. "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in not considering the

fact that the timeline contained in Regulation 20 cannot be

construed to be mandatory & is held to be directory & further

ignoring the fact that it should be taken into consideration

whether procedural lapses such as non-adherence to timelines

specified in CBLR, 2018, whilst dealing with a case has severe

Page 1 of 6

FEBRUARY 4, 2026

Mohite

::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:26:32 :::

14 cuapp2-25.doc

implication over revenue in view of the decision passed by

Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs Unison Clearing Pvt

Ltd"?

b. "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that

the only reason for not granting an opportunity of cross

examination to respondent/CB is because it only pushes the

timeline of the case further despite of delay already caused in

proceedings"?

c. "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified and right in

weighing the procedural lapses which are directory in nature,

against the scale of the offense especially, if the department can

benefit from the decision taken on this case based on facts and

violations committed by CB by giving CB a chance to cross

examine the witness now"?

d. "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal/CESTAT erred in overturning

all findings of facts and holding that none of the charges are

proved and holding that the Respondents have done no wrong"?

e. "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal/CESTAT was right in setting

aside revocation of Custom Broker License and forfeiture of

Security Deposit & penalty despite of the fact that respondent

has failed to discharge his obligation as Customs House Agent

as required under Regulation 10 and regulation 10(a), 10(d),

10(e), 10(k), 10(n) & 13(11) of the CBLR, 2018"?.”

2. After going through the impugned Order, we find that no

substantial question of law arises in the present case. We say this because

admittedly, as recorded in the impugned Order, despite the Respondent

seeking an opportunity to cross-examine persons examined by the Revenue,

in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceeding, the aforesaid

opportunity was denied. The denial was on the basis that there is no

retraction filed by any of the persons whose statement were recorded under

Page 2 of 6

FEBRUARY 4, 2026

Mohite

::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:26:32 :::

14 cuapp2-25.doc

Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore, there is no need to

cross-examine all the persons, as demanded by the Respondent.

3. Regulation 17 of The Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations,

2018, (CBLR, 2018) sets out the procedure for revocation of a license or

imposing a penalty on the Customs Brokers. Regulation 17(3) stipulates that

the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of

Customs, as the case may be, shall, in the course of inquiry, consider such

documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or

material to the inquiry, in regard to the grounds forming the basis of the

proceedings, and he may also put any question to any person tendering

evidence for or against the Customs Broke