https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775990 The CESTAT upheld the revocation of the appellant's courier registration, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty for violations of CIER 2010 Regulations. The appellant submitted benami courier Bills of Entry misdeclaring electronic goods as household items, with consignees either nonexistent or unaware of the consignments. The appellant failed to obtain authorization from consignees, did not possess KYC documents, and did not exercise due diligence in providing accurate information to customs authorities. The court found violations of Regulations 12(1)(iii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (x). The appellant's defense of limited involvement was rejected, and the impugned order by the Commissioner was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 08:28:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775990 The CESTAT upheld the revocation of the appellant's courier registration, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty for violations of CIER 2010 Regulations. The appellant submitted benami courier Bills of Entry misdeclaring electronic goods as household items, with consignees either nonexistent or unaware of the consignments. The appellant failed to obtain authorization from consignees, did not possess KYC documents, and did not exercise due diligence in providing accurate information to customs authorities. The court found violations of Regulations 12(1)(iii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (x). The appellant's defense of limited involvement was rejected, and the impugned order by the Commissioner was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775990