<?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 (10) TMI 767 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349612</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of a Customs Broker License application, holding that no appeal was maintainable under section 129A of the Customs Act. The court emphasized that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013, did not provide for an appeal remedy for rejected applicants, only for licensed brokers. The court clarified the distinction between the Licensing Authority and the Adjudicating Authority, affirming the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision that the appeal was not permissible. The court left the merits of the Commissioner&#039;s order for examination in a separate writ petition, ultimately finding no merit in the appeal and upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 767 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349612</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of a Customs Broker License application, holding that no appeal was maintainable under section 129A of the Customs Act. The court emphasized that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013, did not provide for an appeal remedy for rejected applicants, only for licensed brokers. The court clarified the distinction between the Licensing Authority and the Adjudicating Authority, affirming the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision that the appeal was not permissible. The court left the merits of the Commissioner&#039;s order for examination in a separate writ petition, ultimately finding no merit in the appeal and upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>