https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47808 A Customs House Agent was not found to have breached Regulation 14(d) or Regulation 14(1) where the export documentation matched the export as accepted by Customs officers under direct supervision, and the insertion of the loading place was made by the exporter's employee. On those facts, revocation of the licence under Regulation 21 was unjustified. Penalty under Sections 114, 113(f), 113(g), 117, 33 and 34 of the Customs Act was also held unsustainable because the goods were not prohibited, no revenue loss was shown, and there was no proof of collusion or connivance with Customs. Mere irregularity in loading did not justify penal action. en-us Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47808 A Customs House Agent was not found to have breached Regulation 14(d) or Regulation 14(1) where the export documentation matched the export as accepted by Customs officers under direct supervision, and the insertion of the loading place was made by the exporter's employee. On those facts, revocation of the licence under Regulation 21 was unjustified. Penalty under Sections 114, 113(f), 113(g), 117, 33 and 34 of the Customs Act was also held unsustainable because the goods were not prohibited, no revenue loss was shown, and there was no proof of collusion or connivance with Customs. Mere irregularity in loading did not justify penal action. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47808