https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442024 The Tribunal found that the appellant had no knowledge of the smuggling activities and that the employee was solely responsible. While the appellant failed to comply with Regulation 13, the revocation of the license was deemed unjustified. However, the forfeiture of the security deposit was considered appropriate but reduced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the revocation order and modifying the forfeiture amount. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442024 The Tribunal found that the appellant had no knowledge of the smuggling activities and that the employee was solely responsible. While the appellant failed to comply with Regulation 13, the revocation of the license was deemed unjustified. However, the forfeiture of the security deposit was considered appropriate but reduced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the revocation order and modifying the forfeiture amount. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442024