https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783028 CESTAT set aside the revocation of the customs broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty imposed on the appellant-broker. It held that alleged violation of Regulation 10(a) of CBLR was unproven, as mere non-availability of authorization in SIIB investigation did not establish its absence when the shipping bills were filed. The Tribunal rejected the charge under Regulation 10(d), finding no evidence that the broker failed to advise the exporter to comply with the Act and noting the broker's limited role as a document processor. Alleged breach of Regulation 10(n) was also disallowed, as verification through authentic government-issued documents (IEC, GSTIN, PAN) satisfied due diligence requirements. The appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783028 CESTAT set aside the revocation of the customs broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty imposed on the appellant-broker. It held that alleged violation of Regulation 10(a) of CBLR was unproven, as mere non-availability of authorization in SIIB investigation did not establish its absence when the shipping bills were filed. The Tribunal rejected the charge under Regulation 10(d), finding no evidence that the broker failed to advise the exporter to comply with the Act and noting the broker's limited role as a document processor. Alleged breach of Regulation 10(n) was also disallowed, as verification through authentic government-issued documents (IEC, GSTIN, PAN) satisfied due diligence requirements. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783028