https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756778 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging revocation of Customs Broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposition for alleged violations of CBLR Regulations 10(a), (d), (e) and (n). The tribunal found no violation of Regulation 10(a) as authorization letter's omission was merely careless, not intentional. For Regulation 10(d), over-valuation allegations were rejected since customs brokers have no role in determining assessable value - this responsibility lies with proper officers. Regulation 10(e) violation was unfounded as brokers don't provide goods valuation. Regulation 10(n) violation regarding exporter's address was dismissed as the department itself used the same IEC address. The tribunal concluded no evidence supported any regulatory violations, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Aug 2024 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756778 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging revocation of Customs Broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposition for alleged violations of CBLR Regulations 10(a), (d), (e) and (n). The tribunal found no violation of Regulation 10(a) as authorization letter's omission was merely careless, not intentional. For Regulation 10(d), over-valuation allegations were rejected since customs brokers have no role in determining assessable value - this responsibility lies with proper officers. Regulation 10(e) violation was unfounded as brokers don't provide goods valuation. Regulation 10(n) violation regarding exporter's address was dismissed as the department itself used the same IEC address. The tribunal concluded no evidence supported any regulatory violations, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756778