<?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 528 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765982</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal challenging revocation of customs broker license and penalty imposition. The tribunal found no violation of CBLR 2018 Regulations 10(d), 10(m), and 10(n). The customs broker properly verified importer&#039;s documents including genuine signatures confirmed by bank authorities, IEC, GSTIN, and PAN cards. The inquiry officer&#039;s findings supported the broker&#039;s compliance, and the adjudicating authority failed to provide reasons for rejecting these conclusions. The tribunal held that physical verification of every importer&#039;s premises was not required when genuine documents were available. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:12:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=797702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 528 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765982</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal challenging revocation of customs broker license and penalty imposition. The tribunal found no violation of CBLR 2018 Regulations 10(d), 10(m), and 10(n). The customs broker properly verified importer&#039;s documents including genuine signatures confirmed by bank authorities, IEC, GSTIN, and PAN cards. The inquiry officer&#039;s findings supported the broker&#039;s compliance, and the adjudicating authority failed to provide reasons for rejecting these conclusions. The tribunal held that physical verification of every importer&#039;s premises was not required when genuine documents were available. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>