https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84387 The CESTAT held that the CB did not violate Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(f) of CBLR, 2018. Drawing analogy from a previous case, the Tribunal stated that the CB cannot be held liable for the exporter's actions unless there is clear evidence of the broker's involvement in the alleged misconduct. The Delhi HC had also ruled that a CB is not an expert in identifying misdeclaration of goods. Consequently, the revocation of the CB's license, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty were set aside, allowing the appeal. en-us Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:39:21 +0530 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:39:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84387 The CESTAT held that the CB did not violate Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(f) of CBLR, 2018. Drawing analogy from a previous case, the Tribunal stated that the CB cannot be held liable for the exporter's actions unless there is clear evidence of the broker's involvement in the alleged misconduct. The Delhi HC had also ruled that a CB is not an expert in identifying misdeclaration of goods. Consequently, the revocation of the CB's license, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty were set aside, allowing the appeal. Highlights Customs Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:39:21 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84387