<?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 1197 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767811</link>
    <description>CESTAT Mumbai-AT allowed appeal against customs broker license revocation. Principal Commissioner of Customs Mumbai had revoked license and forfeited security deposit under regulation 14, plus imposed Rs. 50,000 penalty under regulation 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. Appellant allegedly breached regulations 10(d) and 10(e) by obtaining clearance after examining only three containers instead of entire consignment. Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate concealment or collusion, noting customs officials were aware of examination requirements. While technical violation occurred, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate. Penalty of Rs. 50,000 was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:36:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=809159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1197 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767811</link>
      <description>CESTAT Mumbai-AT allowed appeal against customs broker license revocation. Principal Commissioner of Customs Mumbai had revoked license and forfeited security deposit under regulation 14, plus imposed Rs. 50,000 penalty under regulation 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. Appellant allegedly breached regulations 10(d) and 10(e) by obtaining clearance after examining only three containers instead of entire consignment. Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate concealment or collusion, noting customs officials were aware of examination requirements. While technical violation occurred, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate. Penalty of Rs. 50,000 was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>