Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
CESTAT held that the alleged failure to obtain acknowledged intimation of appointment of a qualified person was, on the facts, a procedural irregularity and not a grave breach warranting revocation of the Customs Broker licence or forfeiture of the security deposit. The Department relied only on absence of record and produced no positive evidence of deliberate non-compliance, while there was no allegation of fraud, misdeclaration or revenue loss. Applying proportionality, the Tribunal distinguished authorities involving complete absence of a qualified person and conscious nondisclosure. It nevertheless upheld the penalty because the broker showed lack of due diligence in maintaining proper documentation and regulatory compliance.
CESTAT held that the alleged failure to obtain acknowledged intimation of appointment of a qualified person was, on the facts, a procedural irregularity and not a grave breach warranting revocation of the Customs Broker licence or forfeiture of the security deposit. The Department relied only on absence of record and produced no positive evidence of deliberate non-compliance, while there was no allegation of fraud, misdeclaration or revenue loss. Applying proportionality, the Tribunal distinguished authorities involving complete absence of a qualified person and conscious nondisclosure. It nevertheless upheld the penalty because the broker showed lack of due diligence in maintaining proper documentation and regulatory compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
