Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
