https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178929 The appellant's violation of Regulation 12 by subletting their CHA license was proven, while charges under Regulations 13(a) and 13(d) were not sustained due to proper authorization and lack of knowledge of misdeclaration/suppression. The punishment of debarring the appellant from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone was upheld by the majority decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the Commissioner's order under Regulation 20(c) of the CHALR, 2004. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:11:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178929 The appellant's violation of Regulation 12 by subletting their CHA license was proven, while charges under Regulations 13(a) and 13(d) were not sustained due to proper authorization and lack of knowledge of misdeclaration/suppression. The punishment of debarring the appellant from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone was upheld by the majority decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the Commissioner's order under Regulation 20(c) of the CHALR, 2004. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178929