<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765157</link>
    <description>A Customs Broker was found not liable for alleged violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 where the case rested mainly on a retracted statement and electronic chats without independent corroboration. The record showed authorisation by the importer, and the Tribunal held that a broker is not required to personally meet the importer or investigate the genuineness of government-issued documents beyond verifying the documents and particulars furnished. Because there was no reliable proof that the certificates of origin were false or forged, the allegations of connivance, abetment and regulatory breach failed, and the revocation, forfeiture and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2025 08:40:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=792070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765157</link>
      <description>A Customs Broker was found not liable for alleged violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 where the case rested mainly on a retracted statement and electronic chats without independent corroboration. The record showed authorisation by the importer, and the Tribunal held that a broker is not required to personally meet the importer or investigate the genuineness of government-issued documents beyond verifying the documents and particulars furnished. Because there was no reliable proof that the certificates of origin were false or forged, the allegations of connivance, abetment and regulatory breach failed, and the revocation, forfeiture and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>