https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783361 CESTAT set aside the order revoking the customs broker licence, forfeiting security deposit and imposing penalty on the appellant-broker. It held that the alleged violation of Regulation 10(a) was unsupported, as the SCN neither alleged absence of authorization nor relied on the Section 108 statement used by the Commissioner. Alleged breaches of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) were rejected since there was no evidence that the broker failed to advise the importer on compliance or supplied incorrect information, and Section 108 statements not cited in the SCN could not be relied upon. The Tribunal further held that compliance with KYC and online verification satisfied Regulation 10(n), and the broker was not liable for any benami IEC/GSTIN issued by authorities. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783361 CESTAT set aside the order revoking the customs broker licence, forfeiting security deposit and imposing penalty on the appellant-broker. It held that the alleged violation of Regulation 10(a) was unsupported, as the SCN neither alleged absence of authorization nor relied on the Section 108 statement used by the Commissioner. Alleged breaches of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) were rejected since there was no evidence that the broker failed to advise the importer on compliance or supplied incorrect information, and Section 108 statements not cited in the SCN could not be relied upon. The Tribunal further held that compliance with KYC and online verification satisfied Regulation 10(n), and the broker was not liable for any benami IEC/GSTIN issued by authorities. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783361