<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (12) TMI 363 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95306</link>
    <description>Revocation of a Customs House Agent licence was found unsustainable where the alleged misdeclaration and forged documents were attributed to an employee, but no material linked the licence-holder&#039;s directors or other responsible persons to the fraud. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not been specifically put on notice of the alleged breach of Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, which formed the basis of cancellation. Generalized allegations of lack of supervision were insufficient to justify the extreme penalty, especially where the licence had remained under suspension for about seven years. The revocation was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:24:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 363 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95306</link>
      <description>Revocation of a Customs House Agent licence was found unsustainable where the alleged misdeclaration and forged documents were attributed to an employee, but no material linked the licence-holder&#039;s directors or other responsible persons to the fraud. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not been specifically put on notice of the alleged breach of Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, which formed the basis of cancellation. Generalized allegations of lack of supervision were insufficient to justify the extreme penalty, especially where the licence had remained under suspension for about seven years. The revocation was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>