https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465098 CESTAT set aside the Principal Commissioner's order revoking the customs broker's licence, forfeiting security deposit and imposing penalty under CBLR, 2018. It held that the single shipping bill filed for imitation jewellery involved no export incentive, no drawback was claimed, and the consignment, though given Let Export Order under s.51 of the Customs Act, 1962, was taken back to town and never exported. Hence, allegations of overvaluation and misuse of ineligible drawback were factually unsustainable. Applying earlier Tribunal and HC precedents, CESTAT held that a customs broker has no locus over transaction value negotiations and is not obliged to detect such alleged misdeclaration. The appeals were allowed. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 19:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465098 CESTAT set aside the Principal Commissioner's order revoking the customs broker's licence, forfeiting security deposit and imposing penalty under CBLR, 2018. It held that the single shipping bill filed for imitation jewellery involved no export incentive, no drawback was claimed, and the consignment, though given Let Export Order under s.51 of the Customs Act, 1962, was taken back to town and never exported. Hence, allegations of overvaluation and misuse of ineligible drawback were factually unsustainable. Applying earlier Tribunal and HC precedents, CESTAT held that a customs broker has no locus over transaction value negotiations and is not obliged to detect such alleged misdeclaration. The appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465098