https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412035 The court ruled in the case that there is no provision for automatic or deemed suspension of a Customs Broker licence under the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the Commissioner of Customs cannot suspend a licence without following formalities as required by regulations. The court also found that the Commissioner does not have the power to waive or dispense with these formalities. Additionally, it determined that Section 154 of the Customs Act cannot be used to impose additional penalties beyond the original adjudication order. The court clarified the nature of security deposits and emphasized that pre-deposit of penalties does not automatically revoke forfeiture of security deposits. The writ petition was disposed of, declaring the suspension of the licence as illegal and emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Sep 2021 08:35:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412035 The court ruled in the case that there is no provision for automatic or deemed suspension of a Customs Broker licence under the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the Commissioner of Customs cannot suspend a licence without following formalities as required by regulations. The court also found that the Commissioner does not have the power to waive or dispense with these formalities. Additionally, it determined that Section 154 of the Customs Act cannot be used to impose additional penalties beyond the original adjudication order. The court clarified the nature of security deposits and emphasized that pre-deposit of penalties does not automatically revoke forfeiture of security deposits. The writ petition was disposed of, declaring the suspension of the licence as illegal and emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412035