<?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>Appellant failed to advise client on SCOMET export authorization, wrongly relied on declaration. Penalty upheld, revocation set aside.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79733</link>
    <description>Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR established - appellant obligated to advise client about authorization requirement for SCOMET item export, instead filed Shipping Bill. Appellant&#039;s reliance on client&#039;s declaration unacceptable - onus on appellant to know law. SCN not time-barred - issued within 80 days of receipt of correct offence report. Revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit disproportionate considering no evidence of profiting, appellant out of work for a year. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upheld, revocation and forfeiture set aside. Appeal partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 09:07:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 09:07:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant failed to advise client on SCOMET export authorization, wrongly relied on declaration. Penalty upheld, revocation set aside.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79733</link>
      <description>Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR established - appellant obligated to advise client about authorization requirement for SCOMET item export, instead filed Shipping Bill. Appellant&#039;s reliance on client&#039;s declaration unacceptable - onus on appellant to know law. SCN not time-barred - issued within 80 days of receipt of correct offence report. Revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit disproportionate considering no evidence of profiting, appellant out of work for a year. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upheld, revocation and forfeiture set aside. Appeal partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 09:07:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>