ORDER : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Department has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the CESTAT dated 12-5-2015 raising following questions of law for our consideration:-- I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT had erred in not appreciating the fact that there was utter violation of rules and regulations by the Customs Broker and whether such a case can be treated equally like other routine case? II. Whether the CESTAT had erred in not considering the fact that certain procedural deviation by the department can be the reason for non-suspension of a CHA licence in case of grave and intentional violation of Import-Export Policy/Smuggling by CHA where clear evidences are available? III. Whether the CESTAT had erred by not appreciating the fact that the delay caused in the case was primarily by Customs Broker himself by non-cooperating and by absenting himself from the investigation? Brief facts are that respondent was a customs broker enjoying necessary licence granted by the Customs authorities for such purpose. In connection with the imports made by the importers through such broker, containers were detained on 9-1-2014 finding that some of the containers carried imported cigarettes without proper declaration. After conducting preliminary investigation, the competent authority, i.e. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla passed order dated 15-10-2014 suspending the licence of the customs broker in exercise of powers under Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as the Regulations of 2013). In terms of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 19, upon suspension of licence, the competent authority would grant hearing to the broker within 15 days of the date of suspension of the licence and within 15 days thereafter, pass an order either revoking the suspension or continuing it. Regulation 20 prescribes procedure for revoking the licence or imposing penalty. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent was granted personal hearing within 15 days of the date of suspension. However, further order either continuing or revoking the suspension was not passed by the Commissioner for nearly five and half months after the date of hearing. Such order was passed only on 3-3-2015. 2. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent was granted personal hearing within 15 days of the date of suspension. However, further order either continuing or revoking the suspension was not passed by the Commissioner for nearly five and half months after the date of hearing. Such order was passed only on 3-3-2015. 2. In this background, the Tribunal interpreted the provisions of Regulations 19 and 20 of the Regulations of 2013 and come to conclusion that the requirement of passing further order within 15 days of the date of hearing the broker either continuing or revoking the licence was mandatory. Failing to pass any such order within 15 days would result into automatic revocation of the suspension. 3. The issue does involve certain interpretation of Regulations 19 and 20. However, in the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to enter into such arena. Commissioner has given absolutely no reasons why the order continuing the suspension could not be passed for nearly five and half months after the date of hearing. The effect of the Tribunal's order declaring that the suspension had automatically lapsed upon completion of 15 days is already in operation since May 2015. 4. Under the circumstances, keeping the question of law open, in facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere. We may notice that proviso to Regulation 19 of the Regulations of 2013 provides that in case of Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, passes an order for continuing the suspension, the further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in Regulation 20. As noted, Regulation 20 prescribes procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty. The proviso to Regulation 19 refers to the further procedure to be undertaken after the competent authority has passed an order continuing the suspension of the broker, which prima facie, in our opinion, is an emphatic way of providing that if the order of suspension of a broker is continued, the authorities would proceed to decide finally on the question of imposing penalty or for revoking the licence. This would not, however, mean that for some reason, authority under Regulation 19(2) decides not to continue the suspension or to revoke it, no further procedure under Regulation 20 can be undertaken. This would not, however, mean that for some reason, authority under Regulation 19(2) decides not to continue the suspension or to revoke it, no further procedure under Regulation 20 can be undertaken. In a given case, the authority may decide not to continue the suspension of the licence of the broker, may nevertheless be advised to undertake proceedings for imposing penalty or some such action under Regulation 20. Likewise, mere lapsing of the order of suspension of licence for want of further continuation in terms of sub-regulation(2) of Regulation 19 may not debar the Department from further action under Regulation 20. Under the circumstances, tax appeal is dismissed without deciding the question of law and without prejudice to the Department to take further action under Regulation 20 of the Regulations of 2013. Civil application is also dismissed.