<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1146 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269842</link>
    <description>In Customs House Agent disciplinary proceedings, the sanction must be proportionate to the gravity of the regulatory breach, and permanent revocation is not automatic merely because some violations are proved. Where the Tribunal assessed the agent&#039;s limited role, the surrounding circumstances, and the nature of the misconduct, it could substitute partial revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit for the severest penalty. The High Court found no perversity or lack of material in that approach and accepted that punishment may be calibrated to the lapse and the period already spent out of business. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1146 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269842</link>
      <description>In Customs House Agent disciplinary proceedings, the sanction must be proportionate to the gravity of the regulatory breach, and permanent revocation is not automatic merely because some violations are proved. Where the Tribunal assessed the agent&#039;s limited role, the surrounding circumstances, and the nature of the misconduct, it could substitute partial revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit for the severest penalty. The High Court found no perversity or lack of material in that approach and accepted that punishment may be calibrated to the lapse and the period already spent out of business. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>