<?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 (4) TMI 76 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768162</link>
    <description>An authorised courier must exercise due diligence under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 by verifying the client&#039;s identity, antecedents, address and contact particulars through reliable documents and information, and by ensuring the required screening or verification of consignments under the applicable circulars. The order found that fair procedure was followed because the inquiry report, reply and personal hearing were reflected and multiple opportunities were granted. It further held that the courier failed to establish effective KYC verification in one transaction and could not avoid responsibility by claiming consignments could not be opened. The regulatory violations were sustained, and the forfeiture, penalty and licence non-revocation were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2025 08:35:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=811059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 76 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768162</link>
      <description>An authorised courier must exercise due diligence under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 by verifying the client&#039;s identity, antecedents, address and contact particulars through reliable documents and information, and by ensuring the required screening or verification of consignments under the applicable circulars. The order found that fair procedure was followed because the inquiry report, reply and personal hearing were reflected and multiple opportunities were granted. It further held that the courier failed to establish effective KYC verification in one transaction and could not avoid responsibility by claiming consignments could not be opened. The regulatory violations were sustained, and the forfeiture, penalty and licence non-revocation were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>