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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95955 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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
