Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appeal challenges the revocation of customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposed for alleged violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR). Regarding Regulation 10(d) violation, it was held that the appellants, being customs brokers (CB), neither had contact with the exporter nor informed the delay in export consignment, but they were not responsible for the mis-declaration of goods as 'Kraft paper' instead of prohibited 'Red Sanders' in the shipping bill filed online by another CB. As for Regulation 10(n) violation, the allegation of not conducting proper KYC verification of the exporter was rejected, as the appellants had initially obtained KYC documents and later transferred the consignment to another CB in Pune. The Delhi High Court had held that a CB is not an expert to identify mis-declaration of goods. Since the appellants were not handling the export consignment, they cannot be held responsible for violating Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). The impugned order revoking the CB license, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing penalty was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal as it was contrary to facts and unsustainable in law.
The appeal challenges the revocation of customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposed for alleged violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR). Regarding Regulation 10(d) violation, it was held that the appellants, being customs brokers (CB), neither had contact with the exporter nor informed the delay in export consignment, but they were not responsible for the mis-declaration of goods as 'Kraft paper' instead of prohibited 'Red Sanders' in the shipping bill filed online by another CB. As for Regulation 10(n) violation, the allegation of not conducting proper KYC verification of the exporter was rejected, as the appellants had initially obtained KYC documents and later transferred the consignment to another CB in Pune. The Delhi High Court had held that a CB is not an expert to identify mis-declaration of goods. Since the appellants were not handling the export consignment, they cannot be held responsible for violating Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). The impugned order revoking the CB license, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing penalty was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal as it was contrary to facts and unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
