https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377954 The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving alleged violations of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, specifically Regulations 18 and 20, and the forfeiture of a security deposit. The Court found that the appellant, acting as a facilitator, did not engage in fraudulent activities or illegal conduct, and the expectations placed on the Customs Broker were deemed reasonable. Consequently, the Court set aside the forfeiture and penalties imposed by the Commissioner and Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of understanding the roles and responsibilities within the customs framework when determining liability. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 06:02:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377954 The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving alleged violations of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, specifically Regulations 18 and 20, and the forfeiture of a security deposit. The Court found that the appellant, acting as a facilitator, did not engage in fraudulent activities or illegal conduct, and the expectations placed on the Customs Broker were deemed reasonable. Consequently, the Court set aside the forfeiture and penalties imposed by the Commissioner and Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of understanding the roles and responsibilities within the customs framework when determining liability. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377954