<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1156 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336511</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order revoking the Customs Broker (CB) license and forfeiting the security deposit. The Tribunal held that the revocation and forfeiture were not maintainable due to non-adherence to statutory timelines under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013, emphasizing the mandatory nature of these time limits. The decision focused on procedural irregularities rather than the merits of the case or punishment considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1156 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336511</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order revoking the Customs Broker (CB) license and forfeiting the security deposit. The Tribunal held that the revocation and forfeiture were not maintainable due to non-adherence to statutory timelines under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013, emphasizing the mandatory nature of these time limits. The decision focused on procedural irregularities rather than the merits of the case or punishment considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>