<?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>2017 (5) TMI 799 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343061</link>
    <description>Binding timelines for completing customs broker licence revocation proceedings were treated as essential to the validity of punitive action. Although the charge-sheet was issued within time, the inquiry and final order were completed well beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal held that such inordinate delay could not be excused by the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, because compliance with the regulatory procedure was itself necessary to sustain revocation and related forfeiture. The delay therefore rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable, and the revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were set aside without remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 May 2017 07:31:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 799 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343061</link>
      <description>Binding timelines for completing customs broker licence revocation proceedings were treated as essential to the validity of punitive action. Although the charge-sheet was issued within time, the inquiry and final order were completed well beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal held that such inordinate delay could not be excused by the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, because compliance with the regulatory procedure was itself necessary to sustain revocation and related forfeiture. The delay therefore rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable, and the revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were set aside without remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>