https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350555 Under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, a private complaint was held not to be the offence report for triggering the 90-day limit under Regulation 20, and the enquiry was not invalidated because a personal hearing had in fact been afforded through the broker's manager. On the merits, misuse of signed blank bills of entry and breach of the duty to act personally or through an approved employee was established, but without forgery or any customs-law violation in the goods themselves. CESTAT held that the conduct warranted punishment, yet licence revocation was disproportionate and was set aside, while the monetary penalty was sustained. en-us Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350555 Under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, a private complaint was held not to be the offence report for triggering the 90-day limit under Regulation 20, and the enquiry was not invalidated because a personal hearing had in fact been afforded through the broker's manager. On the merits, misuse of signed blank bills of entry and breach of the duty to act personally or through an approved employee was established, but without forgery or any customs-law violation in the goods themselves. CESTAT held that the conduct warranted punishment, yet licence revocation was disproportionate and was set aside, while the monetary penalty was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350555