https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439842 The appeal was allowed in part, confirming the penalty of &8377;50,000 under regulation 17 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018. However, the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were overturned due to insufficient findings. The judgment highlighted the vicarious liability of the appellant under regulation 13(12) but recognized the company's lack of direct involvement in the impropriety. en-us Wed, 28 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jul 2023 08:56:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439842 The appeal was allowed in part, confirming the penalty of &8377;50,000 under regulation 17 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018. However, the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were overturned due to insufficient findings. The judgment highlighted the vicarious liability of the appellant under regulation 13(12) but recognized the company's lack of direct involvement in the impropriety. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 28 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439842