Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - The CESTAT held that the appellant was responsible for the actions of their employee, as per Regulation 13(12) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Despite the appellant's claim of ignorance, the CESTAT found that they failed to exercise proper supervision over their employees and were therefore liable for the violations. - The Tribunal found that the appellant had violated several regulations, including failing to advise the client to comply with regulations, exercising due diligence, and verifying the correctness of import-export codes. The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner to revoke the appellant's license and impose penalties.
Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - The CESTAT held that the appellant was responsible for the actions of their employee, as per Regulation 13(12) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Despite the appellant's claim of ignorance, the CESTAT found that they failed to exercise proper supervision over their employees and were therefore liable for the violations. - The Tribunal found that the appellant had violated several regulations, including failing to advise the client to comply with regulations, exercising due diligence, and verifying the correctness of import-export codes. The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner to revoke the appellant's license and impose penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
