<?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>2006 (12) TMI 280 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120376</link>
    <description>A customs house agent licence could not be revoked on the facts proved, because the proceedings were not shown to have been properly directed against the proprietary firm itself and the enquiry centred on an individual office bearer in his personal capacity. The evidence also indicated that the person concerned was merely procuring business and acting for the exporter, rather than using the agent&#039;s licence without authority. Since a customs house agent has no duty to verify the quality or value of exported goods, the finding of inferior export quality did not justify licence revocation or forfeiture of the security deposit. The revocation was therefore set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 280 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120376</link>
      <description>A customs house agent licence could not be revoked on the facts proved, because the proceedings were not shown to have been properly directed against the proprietary firm itself and the enquiry centred on an individual office bearer in his personal capacity. The evidence also indicated that the person concerned was merely procuring business and acting for the exporter, rather than using the agent&#039;s licence without authority. Since a customs house agent has no duty to verify the quality or value of exported goods, the finding of inferior export quality did not justify licence revocation or forfeiture of the security deposit. The revocation was therefore set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>