https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247363 The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit, citing lack of necessary supervision by the CHA over the G Card holder, who engaged in forgery of customs documents without the CHA's knowledge. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments of bias, non-application of mind by the Commissioner, and disproportional punishment, emphasizing the importance of supervision in such cases. The decision was based on the principle of vicarious responsibility and the need for CHAs to exercise proper oversight over their employees to prevent fraudulent activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2014 10:51:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247363 The Tribunal upheld the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit, citing lack of necessary supervision by the CHA over the G Card holder, who engaged in forgery of customs documents without the CHA's knowledge. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments of bias, non-application of mind by the Commissioner, and disproportional punishment, emphasizing the importance of supervision in such cases. The decision was based on the principle of vicarious responsibility and the need for CHAs to exercise proper oversight over their employees to prevent fraudulent activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247363