<?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 (12) TMI 791 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389908</link>
    <description>A customs broker licence revocation cannot be sustained on the basis of inconsistent statements and incomplete corroboration. The material relied upon for alleged manipulation of imported consignments was found unreliable because the statements were internally inconsistent on key facts, only a limited set of weighment slips was used, and no statement was taken from another relevant weighbridge operator. The commentary also stresses that an extreme penalty should not be imposed without considering a lesser alternative, particularly where the broker cooperated in the inquiry and made payment towards the revenue loss. The stated principle is that revocation and forfeiture require credible, corroborative evidence and a proportionate response to the proven misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2020 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 791 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389908</link>
      <description>A customs broker licence revocation cannot be sustained on the basis of inconsistent statements and incomplete corroboration. The material relied upon for alleged manipulation of imported consignments was found unreliable because the statements were internally inconsistent on key facts, only a limited set of weighment slips was used, and no statement was taken from another relevant weighbridge operator. The commentary also stresses that an extreme penalty should not be imposed without considering a lesser alternative, particularly where the broker cooperated in the inquiry and made payment towards the revenue loss. The stated principle is that revocation and forfeiture require credible, corroborative evidence and a proportionate response to the proven misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>