<?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>2023 (3) TMI 27 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434641</link>
    <description>Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires verification of the IEC, GSTIN, client identity and declared business address through reliable, independent and authentic material, but it does not make the customs broker responsible for verifying the correctness of government-issued records or for continuous physical surveillance of the client. A show cause notice based only on an email and data analysis, without relied-upon documents or further enquiry, was insufficient to prove breach. Suspicion could justify investigation, but not replace evidence. On the record, there was no material showing that the exporters did not exist or that the broker failed the required verification, so revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 08:17:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=706002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 27 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434641</link>
      <description>Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires verification of the IEC, GSTIN, client identity and declared business address through reliable, independent and authentic material, but it does not make the customs broker responsible for verifying the correctness of government-issued records or for continuous physical surveillance of the client. A show cause notice based only on an email and data analysis, without relied-upon documents or further enquiry, was insufficient to prove breach. Suspicion could justify investigation, but not replace evidence. On the record, there was no material showing that the exporters did not exist or that the broker failed the required verification, so revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>