Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96207 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 4811 
Join Channel 
