<?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 (2) TMI 485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765939</link>
    <description>A customs broker may be exposed to confiscation-linked penalty where it fails to verify the importer&#039;s credentials, acts without proper authorisation, and submits an incorrect report in the import process. On the facts discussed, the goods were found to be misdeclared as readymade garments, while the broker had not discharged basic due diligence or KYC obligations; penalty under Section 112(a)(i) was therefore sustained. The text also notes that objections based on vagueness and limitation were rejected because the notice traced the broker&#039;s role, the verification failures, and the reported service defects, and the show cause notice and corrigendum were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:36:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=797399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765939</link>
      <description>A customs broker may be exposed to confiscation-linked penalty where it fails to verify the importer&#039;s credentials, acts without proper authorisation, and submits an incorrect report in the import process. On the facts discussed, the goods were found to be misdeclared as readymade garments, while the broker had not discharged basic due diligence or KYC obligations; penalty under Section 112(a)(i) was therefore sustained. The text also notes that objections based on vagueness and limitation were rejected because the notice traced the broker&#039;s role, the verification failures, and the reported service defects, and the show cause notice and corrigendum were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>