<?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>2022 (11) TMI 935 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430511</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the orders revoking the Customs Brokers&#039; licenses, forfeiting their security deposits, and imposing penalties. It was found that the Customs Brokers had fulfilled their obligations under Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, as the evidence did not definitively prove non-existence of exporters at declared premises. The appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 935 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430511</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the orders revoking the Customs Brokers&#039; licenses, forfeiting their security deposits, and imposing penalties. It was found that the Customs Brokers had fulfilled their obligations under Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, as the evidence did not definitively prove non-existence of exporters at declared premises. The appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>