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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Customs broker challenging the revocation of license and forfeiture of security deposit by the Customs authorities. The court held that the power to suspend and revoke the license are distinct under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The 90-day timeline for initiating revocation proceedings applies from the date of the offence report, not the preliminary enquiry for suspension. Although the revocation notice was issued beyond 90 days from the preliminary enquiry, it was within the permissible period from the offence report date. The broker's consistent violations of verifying exporter details under Regulation 10(n) justified the revocation, despite the Tribunal's order being improper. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Customs broker challenging the revocation of license and forfeiture of security deposit by the Customs authorities. The court held that the power to suspend and revoke the license are distinct under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The 90-day timeline for initiating revocation proceedings applies from the date of the offence report, not the preliminary enquiry for suspension. Although the revocation notice was issued beyond 90 days from the preliminary enquiry, it was within the permissible period from the offence report date. The broker's consistent violations of verifying exporter details under Regulation 10(n) justified the revocation, despite the Tribunal's order being improper. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
