<?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>2021 (2) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404657</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the appellant&#039;s Customs Broker license due to lack of substantial evidence supporting allegations of unauthorized activities using the appellant&#039;s identity. However, the forfeiture of the security deposit and imposition of a penalty were upheld, emphasizing the need for due diligence and oversight by Customs Brokers. The appeal was partly allowed, highlighting the importance of compliance with customs regulations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404657</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the appellant&#039;s Customs Broker license due to lack of substantial evidence supporting allegations of unauthorized activities using the appellant&#039;s identity. However, the forfeiture of the security deposit and imposition of a penalty were upheld, emphasizing the need for due diligence and oversight by Customs Brokers. The appeal was partly allowed, highlighting the importance of compliance with customs regulations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>