<?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>Customs Broker&#039;s License Restored: Tribunal Overturns Penalty, Finds Insufficient Evidence on Compliance Failures.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82847</link>
    <description>Revocation of a customs broker&#039;s license and imposition of penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The key points are: The finding that the customs broker failed to obtain authorization from each client was held as not proved. The requirement of being in contact with a specific person was confused with obtaining authorization from the client company. The charge of failing to advise the client to comply with statutory provisions was incorrectly invoked, as there was no evidence that the broker did not advise the client properly. The charge of furnishing incorrect information to the client was also not proved. The allegation of attempting to influence the examination report by customs officers was not substantiated, as .....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs Broker&#039;s License Restored: Tribunal Overturns Penalty, Finds Insufficient Evidence on Compliance Failures.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82847</link>
      <description>Revocation of a customs broker&#039;s license and imposition of penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The key points are: The finding that the customs broker failed to obtain authorization from each client was held as not proved. The requirement of being in contact with a specific person was confused with obtaining authorization from the client company. The charge of failing to advise the client to comply with statutory provisions was incorrectly invoked, as there was no evidence that the broker did not advise the client properly. The charge of furnishing incorrect information to the client was also not proved. The allegation of attempting to influence the examination report by customs officers was not substantiated, as .....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>