<?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>Penalty under Regulation 18 CBLR, 2013 set aside for breach of Regulation 11(n) due to lack of culpability</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92103</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order which had imposed a monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013 for alleged breach of Regulation 11(n). The Tribunal found that, although non-compliance with Regulation 11(n) (failure to verify the declared address of the exporter) was established, the Appellant was not shown to have abetted mis-declaration, benefited from, or participated in fraudulent export transactions. In view of absence of culpability in the fraudulent draw-back scheme, the penalty was held improper and untenable; consequential revocation/forfeiture measures imposed against the Appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:13:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:13:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=847173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty under Regulation 18 CBLR, 2013 set aside for breach of Regulation 11(n) due to lack of culpability</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92103</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order which had imposed a monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013 for alleged breach of Regulation 11(n). The Tribunal found that, although non-compliance with Regulation 11(n) (failure to verify the declared address of the exporter) was established, the Appellant was not shown to have abetted mis-declaration, benefited from, or participated in fraudulent export transactions. In view of absence of culpability in the fraudulent draw-back scheme, the penalty was held improper and untenable; consequential revocation/forfeiture measures imposed against the Appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:13:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>