https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85160 The appeal was allowed as the court found no violations of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations by the appellant, a customs house agent. The judge determined that the order forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 10,000 was not sustainable, noting that the appellant had followed necessary procedures for clearance of goods and that the lapse in not explicitly alerting authorities about the non-domestic origin of the cargo was not sufficient grounds for forfeiture. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's security deposit was returned. en-us Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:58:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85160 The appeal was allowed as the court found no violations of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations by the appellant, a customs house agent. The judge determined that the order forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 10,000 was not sustainable, noting that the appellant had followed necessary procedures for clearance of goods and that the lapse in not explicitly alerting authorities about the non-domestic origin of the cargo was not sufficient grounds for forfeiture. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's security deposit was returned. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85160