<?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>2005 (9) TMI 394 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116583</link>
    <description>A Customs House Agent cannot be penalised for an exporter&#039;s overvaluation fraud unless there is material proving knowing participation, unauthorised transfer of the licence, or breach of supervisory duties under the licensing regulations. The record showed the person said to have received the licence was an intimated employee with a Customs pass, and the evidence did not conclusively establish licence transfer. As the exporter&#039;s fraud was detected only after examination and out of charge, and no cogent finding showed abetment or improper gain, the cancellation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:40:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 394 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116583</link>
      <description>A Customs House Agent cannot be penalised for an exporter&#039;s overvaluation fraud unless there is material proving knowing participation, unauthorised transfer of the licence, or breach of supervisory duties under the licensing regulations. The record showed the person said to have received the licence was an intimated employee with a Customs pass, and the evidence did not conclusively establish licence transfer. As the exporter&#039;s fraud was detected only after examination and out of charge, and no cogent finding showed abetment or improper gain, the cancellation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>