https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784680 The dominant issue was whether proceedings under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR 2018 were barred by limitation due to issuance of the show cause notice beyond the mandatory 90 days from receipt of the offence report; applying the mandatory timeline and treating delay as vitiating, the Tribunal held the notice non est and set aside the proceedings. On merits, it further held that there was no breach of Regulations 10(e) and 10(n) because the broker had obtained and verified KYC documents and, in any event, no clearance-related work was undertaken as no Bill of Entry was filed and the goods were intercepted prior to transhipment; consequently, revocation, forfeiture, and penalty were held disproportionate and unsustainable, and the licence was ordered to be restored with forfeiture and penalty quashed. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:25:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784680 The dominant issue was whether proceedings under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR 2018 were barred by limitation due to issuance of the show cause notice beyond the mandatory 90 days from receipt of the offence report; applying the mandatory timeline and treating delay as vitiating, the Tribunal held the notice non est and set aside the proceedings. On merits, it further held that there was no breach of Regulations 10(e) and 10(n) because the broker had obtained and verified KYC documents and, in any event, no clearance-related work was undertaken as no Bill of Entry was filed and the goods were intercepted prior to transhipment; consequently, revocation, forfeiture, and penalty were held disproportionate and unsustainable, and the licence was ordered to be restored with forfeiture and penalty quashed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784680