<?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 (3) TMI 442 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767056</link>
    <description>Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires a Customs Broker to verify the authenticity of IEC and GSTIN, identify the client through reliable, independent and authentic documents or information, and confirm that the client functions at the declared address. The obligation is one of due verification, not a duty to question the genuineness of government-issued registrations or to maintain continuous surveillance of the client&#039;s later whereabouts. On the stated facts, the documents were not shown to be forged or fake, and the adverse findings depended mainly on later non-traceability of one exporter and broad allegations against others. The alleged breach was therefore not established, and revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 442 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767056</link>
      <description>Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires a Customs Broker to verify the authenticity of IEC and GSTIN, identify the client through reliable, independent and authentic documents or information, and confirm that the client functions at the declared address. The obligation is one of due verification, not a duty to question the genuineness of government-issued registrations or to maintain continuous surveillance of the client&#039;s later whereabouts. On the stated facts, the documents were not shown to be forged or fake, and the adverse findings depended mainly on later non-traceability of one exporter and broad allegations against others. The alleged breach was therefore not established, and revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>