<?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 781 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758537</link>
    <description>Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires a Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IEC and GSTIN, the client&#039;s identity, and the functioning of the client at the declared address through reliable, independent and authentic material. It does not require the broker to whether government-issued registrations were correctly granted, nor does it impose a duty of physical inspection or continuous surveillance at the client&#039;s premises. On the stated facts, the broker was found not to have breached this verification obligation because the documents were issued by government authorities and there was no proof they were forged or invalid; accordingly, revocation, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2024 07:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 781 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758537</link>
      <description>Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires a Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IEC and GSTIN, the client&#039;s identity, and the functioning of the client at the declared address through reliable, independent and authentic material. It does not require the broker to whether government-issued registrations were correctly granted, nor does it impose a duty of physical inspection or continuous surveillance at the client&#039;s premises. On the stated facts, the broker was found not to have breached this verification obligation because the documents were issued by government authorities and there was no proof they were forged or invalid; accordingly, revocation, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>