<?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 (6) TMI 1444 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773331</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai upheld penalty imposed on customs broker under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2013 for mis-declaration of goods&#039; weight in two bills of entry. The broker claimed ignorance of importer&#039;s mis-declaration, but tribunal found this insufficient defense. CESTAT held that CBLR 2013 requires brokers to exercise due diligence and advise clients on legal compliance under Regulation 11(d). The broker&#039;s failure to notice weight discrepancies in slips and report non-compliance constituted blameworthy conduct. Penalty was deemed proportionate as no revenue loss occurred, and lower authority&#039;s decision was neither arbitrary nor excessive. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 12:52:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1444 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773331</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai upheld penalty imposed on customs broker under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2013 for mis-declaration of goods&#039; weight in two bills of entry. The broker claimed ignorance of importer&#039;s mis-declaration, but tribunal found this insufficient defense. CESTAT held that CBLR 2013 requires brokers to exercise due diligence and advise clients on legal compliance under Regulation 11(d). The broker&#039;s failure to notice weight discrepancies in slips and report non-compliance constituted blameworthy conduct. Penalty was deemed proportionate as no revenue loss occurred, and lower authority&#039;s decision was neither arbitrary nor excessive. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>