CESTAT held that a Customs Broker's alleged breach of Regulation 10(d) was not proved because the department produced no credible material showing absence of advice to the exporter, while the exporter's letter confirming such advice could not be rejected for lack of written particulars. The alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) also failed, as neither the show cause notice nor the order identified any specific incorrect information said to have been imparted. On Regulation 10(n), the Tribunal held that verification is satisfied by checking issued IEC, GSTIN, identity and address documents through reliable records; it does not require a physical visit or supervision of government authorities. Revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker's alleged breach of Regulation 10(d) was not proved because the department produced no credible material showing absence of advice to the exporter, while the exporter's letter confirming such advice could not be rejected for lack of written particulars. The alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) also failed, as neither the show cause notice nor the order identified any specific incorrect information said to have been imparted. On Regulation 10(n), the Tribunal held that verification is satisfied by checking issued IEC, GSTIN, identity and address documents through reliable records; it does not require a physical visit or supervision of government authorities. Revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
