<?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 885 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766338</link>
    <description>The court set aside the revocation of M/s SYNC Logistics&#039; customs broker license and related penalties, finding insufficient evidence of a breach of regulation 10(k) under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The court determined that the alleged double filing of a bill of entry and deletion of records did not conclusively demonstrate negligence or malafide intent. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, reversing the penalties and emphasizing the need for clear standards in record-keeping enforcement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2025 08:45:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=800603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 885 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766338</link>
      <description>The court set aside the revocation of M/s SYNC Logistics&#039; customs broker license and related penalties, finding insufficient evidence of a breach of regulation 10(k) under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The court determined that the alleged double filing of a bill of entry and deletion of records did not conclusively demonstrate negligence or malafide intent. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, reversing the penalties and emphasizing the need for clear standards in record-keeping enforcement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>