https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291759 The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the CESTAT's order for forfeiture of the security deposit and penalty. The Court held that the allegations under Regulations 11(a) and 11(d) were not substantiated, emphasizing that the penalties imposed were unjustified, especially given the evidence presented. The Court also noted that the punishment imposed was excessive, considering the standards set for Customs Brokers and the lack of grounds for revocation of the appellant's license. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's appeal was granted. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:38:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291759 The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the CESTAT's order for forfeiture of the security deposit and penalty. The Court held that the allegations under Regulations 11(a) and 11(d) were not substantiated, emphasizing that the penalties imposed were unjustified, especially given the evidence presented. The Court also noted that the punishment imposed was excessive, considering the standards set for Customs Brokers and the lack of grounds for revocation of the appellant's license. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's appeal was granted. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291759