<?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>2024 (2) TMI 27 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448876</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld revocation of customs broker license for fraudulent exports involving floor covering goods under duty drawback and focus product schemes. The broker failed to verify client IEC codes, GSTIN, and identity as required under CBLR 2018, actively conniving with the main exporter using dummy firms for mis-declaration and undervaluation. The tribunal found mens rea established through the broker&#039;s active participation, suggesting export descriptions, charging extra cash payments, and failing to advise authorities despite seeing samples. Security deposit forfeiture and penalty were confirmed for non-compliance with regulatory responsibilities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2024 07:44:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 27 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448876</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld revocation of customs broker license for fraudulent exports involving floor covering goods under duty drawback and focus product schemes. The broker failed to verify client IEC codes, GSTIN, and identity as required under CBLR 2018, actively conniving with the main exporter using dummy firms for mis-declaration and undervaluation. The tribunal found mens rea established through the broker&#039;s active participation, suggesting export descriptions, charging extra cash payments, and failing to advise authorities despite seeing samples. Security deposit forfeiture and penalty were confirmed for non-compliance with regulatory responsibilities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>