<?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 (8) TMI 411 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756707</link>
    <description>CESTAT Mumbai set aside orders revoking customs broker license and forfeiting security deposit. The appellant was charged with diverting electrolytic tough pitch copper rods contrary to export promotion scheme requirements and breaching multiple regulations under Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018. The tribunal found the licensing authority failed to properly inquire into facts establishing breach of each specific obligation, except regulation 10(n). The proceedings were deemed flawed as they presumed obligations existed solely for revocation purposes without considering customs brokers&#039; dual duties to officers and clients. Orders were remanded for fresh individual proceedings following proper procedural framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:09:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 411 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756707</link>
      <description>CESTAT Mumbai set aside orders revoking customs broker license and forfeiting security deposit. The appellant was charged with diverting electrolytic tough pitch copper rods contrary to export promotion scheme requirements and breaching multiple regulations under Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018. The tribunal found the licensing authority failed to properly inquire into facts establishing breach of each specific obligation, except regulation 10(n). The proceedings were deemed flawed as they presumed obligations existed solely for revocation purposes without considering customs brokers&#039; dual duties to officers and clients. Orders were remanded for fresh individual proceedings following proper procedural framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>