https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261217 The Tribunal upheld the suspension of the appellant's custodianship under Regulation 11(2) of HCCAR, 2009, due to serious security lapses in handling seized goods at the Container Freight Station. The suspension was deemed valid as the appellant failed to ensure the safety and security of the cargo, with repeated instances of smuggling indicating a pattern of negligence. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument comparing custodianship to CHA licenses, emphasizing the distinct roles and responsibilities. The suspension was upheld, directing completion of investigations and enforcement actions promptly. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the suspension order. en-us Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261217 The Tribunal upheld the suspension of the appellant's custodianship under Regulation 11(2) of HCCAR, 2009, due to serious security lapses in handling seized goods at the Container Freight Station. The suspension was deemed valid as the appellant failed to ensure the safety and security of the cargo, with repeated instances of smuggling indicating a pattern of negligence. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument comparing custodianship to CHA licenses, emphasizing the distinct roles and responsibilities. The suspension was upheld, directing completion of investigations and enforcement actions promptly. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the suspension order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261217