<?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 licence revoked for sub-letting, benami exports; violations of CBLR Regulations 1(4), 10(a), 10(d), 10(n) upheld</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95102</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld the revocation of the appellant&#039;s Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of Rs. 50,000 penalty under CBLR. The Tribunal found that the appellant had effectively sub-let its licence for monetary consideration by allowing multiple persons to use it and by filing benami shipping bills at the behest of an intermediary, without engagement or authorization from the declared exporter. This conduct constituted violations of Regulations 1(4), 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n), though the alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) was set aside. Holding such conduct a grave risk to revenue and national security, CESTAT found the sanctions proportionate and dismissed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:17:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:17:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871792" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs Broker licence revoked for sub-letting, benami exports; violations of CBLR Regulations 1(4), 10(a), 10(d), 10(n) upheld</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95102</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld the revocation of the appellant&#039;s Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of Rs. 50,000 penalty under CBLR. The Tribunal found that the appellant had effectively sub-let its licence for monetary consideration by allowing multiple persons to use it and by filing benami shipping bills at the behest of an intermediary, without engagement or authorization from the declared exporter. This conduct constituted violations of Regulations 1(4), 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n), though the alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) was set aside. Holding such conduct a grave risk to revenue and national security, CESTAT found the sanctions proportionate and dismissed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:17:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>