<?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>Customs House Agent license revocation and security deposit forfeiture upheld; appellant held responsible for employee&#039;s actions.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27073</link>
    <description>Revocation of CHA License - forfeited of entire amount of security deposit - We do not find any force in this argument for the reason that even if the offence is committed by employee but since it was authorized by the appellant to his employee, it is the appellant who is responsible for offence committed by his employee. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:02:20 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:02:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs House Agent license revocation and security deposit forfeiture upheld; appellant held responsible for employee&#039;s actions.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27073</link>
      <description>Revocation of CHA License - forfeited of entire amount of security deposit - We do not find any force in this argument for the reason that even if the offence is committed by employee but since it was authorized by the appellant to his employee, it is the appellant who is responsible for offence committed by his employee. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:02:20 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>