<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1189 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378745</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the decision to revoke the appellant&#039;s Customs Broker License and forfeit the security deposit of Rs. 75,000. The appellant violated Regulations 11(a), 11(b), and 11(n) of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Charges under Regulations 11(d) and 11(j) were not substantiated, resulting in the affirmation of the order-in-original dated 15/11/2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1189 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378745</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the decision to revoke the appellant&#039;s Customs Broker License and forfeit the security deposit of Rs. 75,000. The appellant violated Regulations 11(a), 11(b), and 11(n) of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Charges under Regulations 11(d) and 11(j) were not substantiated, resulting in the affirmation of the order-in-original dated 15/11/2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>