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 ...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part by modifying the impugned order. It set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker's license and forfeiture of security deposit, as there was no violation of Regulations 1(4), 10(d), 10(n), and 13(12) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the Customs Broker for violating Regulation 10(e) due to failure to exercise due diligence in handling documents while filing import declarations. The Tribunal held that the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for misdeclaration by the importer, as they filed the bill of entry based on documents provided. The delay in inquiry proceedings was not properly explained, and the entire blame cannot be placed on the Customs Broker.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part by modifying the impugned order. It set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker's license and forfeiture of security deposit, as there was no violation of Regulations 1(4), 10(d), 10(n), and 13(12) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the Customs Broker for violating Regulation 10(e) due to failure to exercise due diligence in handling documents while filing import declarations. The Tribunal held that the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for misdeclaration by the importer, as they filed the bill of entry based on documents provided. The delay in inquiry proceedings was not properly explained, and the entire blame cannot be placed on the Customs Broker.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
