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 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
