https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767308 CESTAT held that appellant customs broker violated Regulations 10(a) and 10(q) of CBLR by failing to produce authorization when called for and not cooperating with investigation, but did not violate Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) regarding verification of client existence and documents. Court found systemic issues with DGFT issuing IECs without proper verification, noting customs brokers cannot be held responsible for government officers' actions. Applying proportionality doctrine, CESTAT set aside license revocation and security deposit forfeiture but upheld Rs. 50,000 penalty. Appeal partly allowed with modified order. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:41:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767308 CESTAT held that appellant customs broker violated Regulations 10(a) and 10(q) of CBLR by failing to produce authorization when called for and not cooperating with investigation, but did not violate Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) regarding verification of client existence and documents. Court found systemic issues with DGFT issuing IECs without proper verification, noting customs brokers cannot be held responsible for government officers' actions. Applying proportionality doctrine, CESTAT set aside license revocation and security deposit forfeiture but upheld Rs. 50,000 penalty. Appeal partly allowed with modified order. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767308