$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 48/2026, CM APPL. 35846/2026, CM APPL. 35847/2026 and CM APPL. 35848/2026 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT AND GENERAL) - NEW DELHII .....Appellant Through: Ms. Anurshree Narain, SCC with Mr.Apurv Yadav and Mr.Naman Chola. versus M/S JBM LOGISTICS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms. Oshin Maggu, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No. FO/C/A/51565/2025-CU(DB) dated 06th October, 2025, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CESTAT”) in the Customs Appeal No. 50769/2025. 2. Paragraph 4 of the impugned Order reads as under: “4. No evidence was produced by the department to substantiate this allegation and a presumption about violations of these two regulations has been drawn only because readymade garments Industry is a sensitive industry and the export of the same is risky. Reliance has been placed also on a report submitted by Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch that the exporter firm was not existent at the time of physical verification. Though, this is an issue which would come under regulations 10 (n) of the 2018 Regulations but in the absence of any knowledge This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:34:34 that the firm was non-existent, especially when all the KYC documents had been produced, would not mean that the appellant had failed to discharge duties contemplated under regulations 10(d) and (e) of the 2018 Regulations.” 3. It is noted that in the present case, the Respondent is a Customs Broker Licensee, whose licence to operate as a Customs Broker was revoked and who was also subjected to a penalty. Further, in the Appeal preferred before the learned CESTAT, it was held that no evidence had been produced by the Department to substantiate the allegations levelled against the Respondent. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, apart from referring to the Order-in-Original dated 19th March, 2025, which is based upon the opinion formed by the concerned officer, has failed to draw the attention of this Court to any material on record substantiating the allegations against the Respondent. Furthermore, learned Counsel fairly admits that this is the first occasion on which such allegations have been levelled against the Respondent. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Commissioner of Customs v. K.M. Ganatra & Co.”, 2016 (332) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). However, a perusal of the said judgment reveals that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case involving repeated violations committed by the Customs House Agent. Admittedly, no such history of repeated violations is attributable to the Respondent in the present case. Consequently, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned Order upon due This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:34:34 appreciation of the material available on record. An Appeal under the relevant statutory provision is maintainable only if it gives rise to a substantial question of law. In the facts of the present case, no such substantial question of law arises for consideration. 7. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order. Accordingly, the present Appeal, along with all pending Applications, if any, stands dismissed. 8. At this stage, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned Counsel representing the Respondent that, despite the Order passed by the learned CESTAT, the Respondent's Customs Broker licence has not yet been restored. Since the present Appeal preferred by the Department stands dismissed, the Appellant/Department is directed to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for restoration of the Respondent's licence. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 8, 2026 Pallavi/MM This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:34:34