Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
CESTAT found that the 90 day limit under Regulation 17(7) did...
Authorization requirements for customs brokers and benami shipping bills: tribunal upholds licence revocation and penalties after COVID time limit found applicable
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT found that the 90 day limit under Regulation 17(7) did not lapse because the COVID extension covered the inquiry and order dates; therefore the order was timely. The tribunal held that a customs broker breached Regulation 10(a) and 10(d) by filing benami shipping bills using third party IECs without authorization or contact, and breached Regulation 10(n) by failing to verify IEC, PAN, GSTIN and client KYC. No breach of Regulation 10(e) was found. Given the deliberate filing of benami bills, the tribunal upheld revocation of licence, forfeiture of security and a monetary penalty.
CESTAT found that the 90 day limit under Regulation 17(7) did not lapse because the COVID extension covered the inquiry and order dates; therefore the order was timely. The tribunal held that a customs broker breached Regulation 10(a) and 10(d) by filing benami shipping bills using third party IECs without authorization or contact, and breached Regulation 10(n) by failing to verify IEC, PAN, GSTIN and client KYC. No breach of Regulation 10(e) was found. Given the deliberate filing of benami bills, the tribunal upheld revocation of licence, forfeiture of security and a monetary penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.