<?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>2012 (6) TMI 31 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213711</link>
    <description>Suspension of a Customs House Agent&#039;s licence under Regulation 20(2) became academic after the Commissioner later revoked the licence under Regulation 20(1) and ordered forfeiture of the security deposit. The Tribunal treated the earlier appeal against the suspension order as infructuous because the subsequent revocation had removed the practical relief sought. It therefore declined to examine the merits of the suspension order and dismissed the appeal on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 16:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 31 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213711</link>
      <description>Suspension of a Customs House Agent&#039;s licence under Regulation 20(2) became academic after the Commissioner later revoked the licence under Regulation 20(1) and ordered forfeiture of the security deposit. The Tribunal treated the earlier appeal against the suspension order as infructuous because the subsequent revocation had removed the practical relief sought. It therefore declined to examine the merits of the suspension order and dismissed the appeal on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>