<?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 (6) TMI 636 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754029</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai partially allowed the appeal in a customs broker licence revocation case. The customs broker&#039;s licence was misused for fraudulent export of Uric Acid through over-valuation to claim higher drawback. CESTAT found all procedural timelines under Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 were properly followed - show cause notice, inquiry report, and adjudication order were issued within prescribed 90-day periods. While acknowledging the broker allowed licence misuse for fraudulent transactions and document fabrication, CESTAT modified the Commissioner&#039;s order by setting aside licence revocation but upheld the penalty and security deposit forfeiture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:21:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 636 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754029</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai partially allowed the appeal in a customs broker licence revocation case. The customs broker&#039;s licence was misused for fraudulent export of Uric Acid through over-valuation to claim higher drawback. CESTAT found all procedural timelines under Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 were properly followed - show cause notice, inquiry report, and adjudication order were issued within prescribed 90-day periods. While acknowledging the broker allowed licence misuse for fraudulent transactions and document fabrication, CESTAT modified the Commissioner&#039;s order by setting aside licence revocation but upheld the penalty and security deposit forfeiture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>