<?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>Customs broker penalty under Reg.18 quashed where no evidence of client undervaluation, breach of Reg.10(d) or 10(e)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93605</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Rs.25,000 penalty imposed under Reg.18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Tribunal held the Commissioner&#039;s findings that the Appellant failed to advise its client and failed to notify revenue officers were unsupported by evidence; there is no record demonstrating that the Appellant knew of or participated in the client&#039;s alleged undervaluation or evasion of customs duty. Similarly, the finding of breach of Reg.10(d) and Reg.10(e) could not be sustained, as no evidence showed the Appellant supplied incorrect information or omitted due diligence. Accordingly, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs broker penalty under Reg.18 quashed where no evidence of client undervaluation, breach of Reg.10(d) or 10(e)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93605</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Rs.25,000 penalty imposed under Reg.18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Tribunal held the Commissioner&#039;s findings that the Appellant failed to advise its client and failed to notify revenue officers were unsupported by evidence; there is no record demonstrating that the Appellant knew of or participated in the client&#039;s alleged undervaluation or evasion of customs duty. Similarly, the finding of breach of Reg.10(d) and Reg.10(e) could not be sustained, as no evidence showed the Appellant supplied incorrect information or omitted due diligence. Accordingly, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>