<?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>2018 (4) TMI 786 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358675</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order by ordering forfeiture of the security deposit and imposing a penalty on the appellant. The decision was based on the Principle of Proportionality and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal found violations of various regulations by the appellant but deemed revocation of the Customs Broker license too harsh, opting for a less severe penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2019 17:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 786 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358675</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order by ordering forfeiture of the security deposit and imposing a penalty on the appellant. The decision was based on the Principle of Proportionality and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal found violations of various regulations by the appellant but deemed revocation of the Customs Broker license too harsh, opting for a less severe penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>