https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380793 The court upheld the revocation of the petitioner's Authorized Courier license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty. The petitioner's failure to qualify as an Authorized Courier, non-compliance with regulatory obligations, and improper outsourcing of core functions without permission led to the dismissal of the petition. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and affirmed the actions taken by the respondents. en-us Mon, 27 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380793 The court upheld the revocation of the petitioner's Authorized Courier license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty. The petitioner's failure to qualify as an Authorized Courier, non-compliance with regulatory obligations, and improper outsourcing of core functions without permission led to the dismissal of the petition. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and affirmed the actions taken by the respondents. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380793