https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753231 The time limit in Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was treated as directory on the facts, because the show cause notice was issued within 90 days of the occurrence report and the delay in inquiry was explained by the appellant's belated reply and repeated requests for cross-examination; the limitation objection failed. Effective cross-examination was not found to be denied, as the witness was given multiple opportunities to appear but failed to do so; that challenge failed. Failure to verify the client's antecedents, identity, IEC particulars, and functioning under Regulation 11(n) was proved, but conspiracy in attempted smuggling was not established, so forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld instead of licence revocation. en-us Tue, 21 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 22:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753231 The time limit in Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was treated as directory on the facts, because the show cause notice was issued within 90 days of the occurrence report and the delay in inquiry was explained by the appellant's belated reply and repeated requests for cross-examination; the limitation objection failed. Effective cross-examination was not found to be denied, as the witness was given multiple opportunities to appear but failed to do so; that challenge failed. Failure to verify the client's antecedents, identity, IEC particulars, and functioning under Regulation 11(n) was proved, but conspiracy in attempted smuggling was not established, so forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld instead of licence revocation. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753231