Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
A Customs Broker was not shown to have breached regulations 10(d), 10(e) or 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. Regulation 10(d) only required advice to the client to comply with the Act and allied laws, and the authorization letter recorded that such advice had been given, so no further particulars were necessary. Regulation 10(e) was not violated because the exporter held a valid GST registration on the relevant export date, making the earlier cancellation immaterial. Regulation 10(n) also failed on the same basis, and the Tribunal noted that the Joint Commissioner had found no breach. The revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security were set aside, and restoration of the licence was directed.
A Customs Broker was not shown to have breached regulations 10(d), 10(e) or 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. Regulation 10(d) only required advice to the client to comply with the Act and allied laws, and the authorization letter recorded that such advice had been given, so no further particulars were necessary. Regulation 10(e) was not violated because the exporter held a valid GST registration on the relevant export date, making the earlier cancellation immaterial. Regulation 10(n) also failed on the same basis, and the Tribunal noted that the Joint Commissioner had found no breach. The revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security were set aside, and restoration of the licence was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
