<?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 (12) TMI 857 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416091</link>
    <description>A customs broker is required to exercise due diligence in verifying the client under the licensing regime and section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962; mere reliance on the importer&#039;s IEC registration was insufficient, so the KYC lapse was treated as a real breach. The absence of a separate packing list was not accepted as an independent violation because invoice-cum-packing list documentation is common in trade and there was no finding of tampering or suppression. On proportionality, the established KYC default justified penalty, but revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit were considered excessive for that single lapse and were set aside, while the monetary penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:44:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 857 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416091</link>
      <description>A customs broker is required to exercise due diligence in verifying the client under the licensing regime and section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962; mere reliance on the importer&#039;s IEC registration was insufficient, so the KYC lapse was treated as a real breach. The absence of a separate packing list was not accepted as an independent violation because invoice-cum-packing list documentation is common in trade and there was no finding of tampering or suppression. On proportionality, the established KYC default justified penalty, but revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit were considered excessive for that single lapse and were set aside, while the monetary penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>