<?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>Maximum Rs.50,000 penalty under Reg 22 CBLR 2013 upheld; licence not revoked nor security forfeited per Reg 20(7)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91843</link>
    <description>CESTAT upholds the Commissioner&#039;s order imposing the maximum permissible monetary penalty under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013 (Rs.50,000) and declines revocation of the customs broker&#039;s licence or forfeiture of security. The Tribunal held Regulation 20(7) confines the Commissioner to either revoke the licence or impose a penalty not exceeding the statutory cap, precluding concurrent forfeiture; review recommendations seeking harsher action exceeded the statutory scope. On the facts, culpability of the implicated broker was limited to non-verification of importer details and permitting a single representative to act for multiple IEC holders; the enquiry report did not establish complicity in smuggling. Revenue&#039;s appeal is dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Maximum Rs.50,000 penalty under Reg 22 CBLR 2013 upheld; licence not revoked nor security forfeited per Reg 20(7)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91843</link>
      <description>CESTAT upholds the Commissioner&#039;s order imposing the maximum permissible monetary penalty under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013 (Rs.50,000) and declines revocation of the customs broker&#039;s licence or forfeiture of security. The Tribunal held Regulation 20(7) confines the Commissioner to either revoke the licence or impose a penalty not exceeding the statutory cap, precluding concurrent forfeiture; review recommendations seeking harsher action exceeded the statutory scope. On the facts, culpability of the implicated broker was limited to non-verification of importer details and permitting a single representative to act for multiple IEC holders; the enquiry report did not establish complicity in smuggling. Revenue&#039;s appeal is dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>