https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772254 CESTAT Mumbai set aside the suspension of appellant's CB license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposition. The tribunal found no violation of CBLR 2018 Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n). For Regulation 10(d), the CB firm could not be faulted for not advising client compliance when customs authorities themselves were unaware of price non-genuineness. Regarding Regulation 10(e), the CB received information from the exporter rather than providing it, making due diligence charges unsustainable. For Regulation 10(n), the CB had properly obtained and submitted required KYC documents. The tribunal emphasized that CB firms lack customs expertise to identify goods mis-declaration, citing Delhi HC precedent. The appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:30:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772254 CESTAT Mumbai set aside the suspension of appellant's CB license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposition. The tribunal found no violation of CBLR 2018 Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n). For Regulation 10(d), the CB firm could not be faulted for not advising client compliance when customs authorities themselves were unaware of price non-genuineness. Regarding Regulation 10(e), the CB received information from the exporter rather than providing it, making due diligence charges unsustainable. For Regulation 10(n), the CB had properly obtained and submitted required KYC documents. The tribunal emphasized that CB firms lack customs expertise to identify goods mis-declaration, citing Delhi HC precedent. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772254