The CESTAT held that the order of suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker license was passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, violating Regulation 20(2) of CBLR 2013. However, the legality of the suspension order could not be decided as the challenged order was the revocation dated 12.02.2015. The gravity of the alleged offense did not warrant revocation, which is disproportionate punishment. The appellant must have suffered enough financially, acting as a deterrent. Permanent revocation would adversely impact the appellant's family and employees. The appeal was partly allowed, ordering re-issuance of the Customs Broker License subject to procedural requirements, while upholding the forfeiture of the security deposit.
The CESTAT held that the order of suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker license was passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, violating Regulation 20(2) of CBLR 2013. However, the legality of the suspension order could not be decided as the challenged order was the revocation dated 12.02.2015. The gravity of the alleged offense did not warrant revocation, which is disproportionate punishment. The appellant must have suffered enough financially, acting as a deterrent. Permanent revocation would adversely impact the appellant's family and employees. The appeal was partly allowed, ordering re-issuance of the Customs Broker License subject to procedural requirements, while upholding the forfeiture of the security deposit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
