ORDER M.S. Sanklecha, J. - These two appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenge the common order dated 18th April, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2. Both the Appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal sustaining the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, is non-speaking and passed in breach of principles of natural justice?" 3. As the issue is within the narrow compass, both the appeals are taken up for final disposal at the request of the Counsel for both the parties. 4. The two appellants are Customs House Agents (CHAs). The impugned order dated 18th April, 2017 of the Tribunal has upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act upon both the appellants. The imposition of the penalty was on the basis of not complying with a public notice issued on 10th March, 2005 by the Commissioner of Customs, which required that all Customs House Agents and Members of trade who are involved in import of livestock and its products to strictly comply with the requirement of quarantine clearance and the fulfilment of Exim Policy, failing which, clearance was not allowed. 5. The grievance of the appellant before the Tribunal was that all the Bills of Entry with which both the appellants are concerned, were filed before 10th March, 2005 when the public notice was issued. Thus, it was submitted that on the face of it, no penalty could be imposed upon the CHAs. The aforesaid submission of the appellants was recorded by the Tribunal, yet the impugned order did not deal with appellants'' contentions. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and in breach of principles of natural justice. 6. On perusal of the common impugned order dated 18th April, 2017, we find merit in the above submission of Mr. Shah, inasmuch as the submission of the appellant which is the fundamental to their challenge of the order-in-appeal before the Tribunal, is not considered. The respondent is not able to show any reason, why the impugned order should be sustained in the above facts. 7. Therefore, substantial question of law, is answered in affirmative. Shah, inasmuch as the submission of the appellant which is the fundamental to their challenge of the order-in-appeal before the Tribunal, is not considered. The respondent is not able to show any reason, why the impugned order should be sustained in the above facts. 7. Therefore, substantial question of law, is answered in affirmative. The impugned order dated 18th April, 2017 is set aside and the appeal of the appellants are restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after following the principles of natural justice. 8. All contentions left open. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.