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 ...
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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT reversed revocation of Customs Broker License, finding no violations of CBLR 2018. The tribunal held that the broker fulfilled obligations by verifying documents provided by importers, as law does not require brokers to investigate authenticity of official certificates or physically inspect pre-customs goods. No evidence supported allegations of forged Sri Lankan Certificates of Origin or broker's connivance in misdeclaring goods' origin. The retracted statement of the broker could not be sole basis for penalties without corroborating evidence. The tribunal emphasized that brokers operate based on supplied documents and cannot challenge certificates that even customs authorities must accept through prescribed procedures. Order revoking license, forfeiting security deposit, and imposing penalties was set aside.
CESTAT reversed revocation of Customs Broker License, finding no violations of CBLR 2018. The tribunal held that the broker fulfilled obligations by verifying documents provided by importers, as law does not require brokers to investigate authenticity of official certificates or physically inspect pre-customs goods. No evidence supported allegations of forged Sri Lankan Certificates of Origin or broker's connivance in misdeclaring goods' origin. The retracted statement of the broker could not be sole basis for penalties without corroborating evidence. The tribunal emphasized that brokers operate based on supplied documents and cannot challenge certificates that even customs authorities must accept through prescribed procedures. Order revoking license, forfeiting security deposit, and imposing penalties was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
