<?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 (4) TMI 245 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751064</link>
    <description>CESTAT Mumbai held that a customs broker&#039;s license revocation and penalty were excessive for failing to verify client premises and identity under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013. The broker filed bills of entry for diamond imports worth Rs. 97.65 crores but failed to conduct proper KYC verification of client addresses. While the broker was found guilty of breaching fundamental verification obligations, the tribunal determined that license revocation and penalty were disproportionate consequences. The security deposit forfeiture was upheld, and the broker must provide fresh security deposit under 2018 regulations to continue operations. Appeal partially allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:05:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 245 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751064</link>
      <description>CESTAT Mumbai held that a customs broker&#039;s license revocation and penalty were excessive for failing to verify client premises and identity under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013. The broker filed bills of entry for diamond imports worth Rs. 97.65 crores but failed to conduct proper KYC verification of client addresses. While the broker was found guilty of breaching fundamental verification obligations, the tribunal determined that license revocation and penalty were disproportionate consequences. The security deposit forfeiture was upheld, and the broker must provide fresh security deposit under 2018 regulations to continue operations. Appeal partially allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>