https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784419 Alleged breaches of CBLR, 2018 were examined to justify revocation of a customs broker licence, forfeiture of security, and penalty. Regulation 10(a) was not violated because a valid client authorisation was on record and its authenticity was undisputed; mere later non-contact with the signatory could not negate it, so the charge failed. Regulation 10(f) failed as no specific clearance procedure requiring communication was identified, and regulation 10(n) failed because requisite KYC verification from government websites was admitted, making any higher standard impermissible. Regulation 10(d) was breached since the broker neither contacted the client signatory nor showed that proper customs advice was given to an authorised person acting for the importer; the charge was sustained, penalty upheld. Revocation and security forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784419 Alleged breaches of CBLR, 2018 were examined to justify revocation of a customs broker licence, forfeiture of security, and penalty. Regulation 10(a) was not violated because a valid client authorisation was on record and its authenticity was undisputed; mere later non-contact with the signatory could not negate it, so the charge failed. Regulation 10(f) failed as no specific clearance procedure requiring communication was identified, and regulation 10(n) failed because requisite KYC verification from government websites was admitted, making any higher standard impermissible. Regulation 10(d) was breached since the broker neither contacted the client signatory nor showed that proper customs advice was given to an authorised person acting for the importer; the charge was sustained, penalty upheld. Revocation and security forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784419