##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. V Customs Appeal No. 86938 of 2026 [Arising out of Order No. 11/2026-27 dated 16.09.2026 (F. No. GEN/CB/245/2026) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai]

Navbharat Consolidation Pvt. Ltd. .… Appellant

5D1, 5^th Floor, D Wing, Gundecha Onclave, Khairani Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072.

Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I ....Respondent New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.

APPEARANCE:

Shri Sujit Sahoo with Shri Zainab Burmawala and Shri Sunny Gupta, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Ashish Sharma, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 86362/2026 Date of Hearing: 29.10.2026 Date of Decision: 30.10.2026 PER: P. ANJANI KUMAR M/s. Navprabhat Consolidation Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 16.09.2026 suspending the licence of the appellant Customs Broker.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to this appeal are that the CIU, Nhava Sheva initiated investigation on the basis of an intelligence received that unscrupulous importers are resorting to large scale evasion of customs duty by deliberately misdeclaring the country of origin and were claiming the benefit contained under South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA). The appellant broker is alleged to have filed six Bills of Entry on behalf of the importer, M/s. Transworld Commercial Enterprises for import of walnut kernels. It was also alleged that the Managing Director of the appellant, i.e. Shri Prashant Dwivedi was also a Managing Partner of the importer. A statement of Shri Prashant Dwivedi was recorded on 26/27.02.2026 and an initial investigation report dated 27.04.2026 was sent to the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, Mumbai, recommending action against the appellant Customs Broker. Accordingly, learned Principal Commissioner of Customs (G) vide the impugned order suspended the licence of the appellant. Hence this appeal.

3. Shri Sujit Sahoo, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the first investigation report was received by the respondent on 27.04.2026. The respondent claimed to have received the relied upon documents on 21.08.2026. Learned counsel further submits that a combined reading of the suspension orders dated 31.08.2026 and 16.09.2026 does not disclose which specific material was found in the relied upon documents received on 27.04.2026 to order immediate suspension; the orders also do not speak out as to how the material received by them on 21.08.2026 altered the position and necessitated the emergent requirement for immediate suspension of the licece.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the offence report was admittedly available to the respondent on 27.04.2026 whereas the action of suspension was initiated on 31.08.2026 after a gap of four months; even after allegedly receiving the documents on 27.04.2026, the respondent took about ten days to issue the suspension order. Learned counsel submits that other than stating that the documents are received on 27.04.2026, the respondent has not indicated any immediate cause for suspension of licence. He submits that the term “offence report” is not expressly defined in the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018); the scope and legal significance has been enunciated in many judicial pronouncements holding that the substance of the communication and allegation conveyed to the licensing authority is more important than the nomenclature used; the respondent authorities cannot postpone the commencement of the applicable timeline merely stating that the documents have been received later. More so, when it is not spelt out as to which additional material evidence has been made available by the documents supplied on 27.04.2026, learned co