2026 (2) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er 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 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 beca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t were recorded under 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 agains....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ross-examine these persons was denied by the Inquiry Officer. We find that, in the facts of the present case, once there is a breach of Regulation 17(4), then we do not find any infirmity in the Order passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the Order of the Commissioner revoking the license of the Respondent Assessee. 5. In fact, a similar matter had come up before the Telangana High Court in the case of Shasta Freight Services Pvt.Ltd. vs. Pr. Commr. Of Cus., Hyderabad (2019) 368 ELT 41 (Telangana) where the interpretation of Regulation 20(4) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 came up for consideration. Regulation 20(4) is identical to Regulation 17(4) of the 2018 Regulations. In this matter, the Telangana High Court hel....