Imported seaweed extract provisionally released on bond only; declaratory rejection set aside; appellate decision due within section 128-A(4-A) three ...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9341 to 9360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice seeking revocation of the customs broker licence and penalty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not state the date of receipt of the offence report as mandated by Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013, a time limit treated as mandatory. Consequently, proceedings and consequential adverse findings premised on that notice are quashed to the extent they resulted in forfeiture of the broker's security deposit. The Tribunal declined to examine merits in view of the jurisdictional infirmity, set aside the impugned forfeiture order insofar as it affected the anonymized customs broker, and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice seeking revocation of the customs broker licence and penalty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not state the date of receipt of the offence report as mandated by Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013, a time limit treated as mandatory. Consequently, proceedings and consequential adverse findings premised on that notice are quashed to the extent they resulted in forfeiture of the broker's security deposit. The Tribunal declined to examine merits in view of the jurisdictional infirmity, set aside the impugned forfeiture order insofar as it affected the anonymized customs broker, and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.