Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Rs.25,000 penalty imposed under Reg.18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Tribunal held the Commissioner's findings that the Appellant failed to advise its client and failed to notify revenue officers were unsupported by evidence; there is no record demonstrating that the Appellant knew of or participated in the client's alleged undervaluation or evasion of customs duty. Similarly, the finding of breach of Reg.10(d) and Reg.10(e) could not be sustained, as no evidence showed the Appellant supplied incorrect information or omitted due diligence. Accordingly, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Rs.25,000 penalty imposed under Reg.18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Tribunal held the Commissioner's findings that the Appellant failed to advise its client and failed to notify revenue officers were unsupported by evidence; there is no record demonstrating that the Appellant knew of or participated in the client's alleged undervaluation or evasion of customs duty. Similarly, the finding of breach of Reg.10(d) and Reg.10(e) could not be sustained, as no evidence showed the Appellant supplied incorrect information or omitted due diligence. Accordingly, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
