https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123446 Direct authorisation from the exporters was required, and routing approval through a freight forwarder and broker did not satisfy that requirement, so contravention of Regulation 13(a) of the CHA Licence Regulations, 2004 was established. The alleged failure to promptly notice and report the discrepancy in goods description was not proved, because the discrepancy was brought to the customs authorities soon after detection and the relevant persons were not cross-examined; no contravention of Regulation 13(d) or 13(e) was sustained. With only one breach made out, the suspension was maintained in principle but curtailed to a limited period, with business restoration directed from 1 April 2008. en-us Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123446 Direct authorisation from the exporters was required, and routing approval through a freight forwarder and broker did not satisfy that requirement, so contravention of Regulation 13(a) of the CHA Licence Regulations, 2004 was established. The alleged failure to promptly notice and report the discrepancy in goods description was not proved, because the discrepancy was brought to the customs authorities soon after detection and the relevant persons were not cross-examined; no contravention of Regulation 13(d) or 13(e) was sustained. With only one breach made out, the suspension was maintained in principle but curtailed to a limited period, with business restoration directed from 1 April 2008. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123446