<?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 (9) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757766</link>
    <description>The Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 required recorded reasons when cross-examination was refused, and denial of that request without written reasons was treated as a material procedural defect. Where the broker had sought cross-examination of persons whose statements formed the basis of the notice and inquiry, the disciplinary action could not be sustained on an incomplete evidentiary record. The alleged telephonic contact and active role in overvaluation were also found unsupported by adequate material. Revocation of the licence, forfeiture of the security deposit and penalty were therefore not sustained, and the broker&#039;s relief was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:25:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757766</link>
      <description>The Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 required recorded reasons when cross-examination was refused, and denial of that request without written reasons was treated as a material procedural defect. Where the broker had sought cross-examination of persons whose statements formed the basis of the notice and inquiry, the disciplinary action could not be sustained on an incomplete evidentiary record. The alleged telephonic contact and active role in overvaluation were also found unsupported by adequate material. Revocation of the licence, forfeiture of the security deposit and penalty were therefore not sustained, and the broker&#039;s relief was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>