<?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>2026 (1) TMI 666 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784910</link>
    <description>Whether the customs broker breached CBLR obligations by facilitating duty-free diversion and thereby warranted license revocation and security forfeiture: tribunal held the alleged violations of regs 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 11(n) were unsustainable because misuse of Advance Authorization was discovered by post-import DRI investigation after customs clearance, and customs had no contemporaneous basis to impute knowledge to the broker; KYC requirements were met per CBIC circular. Outcome: revocation and forfeiture set aside. Whether the broker failed to act proactively under reg 11(a)/12(a): relying on K.M. Ganatra, the tribunal found some dereliction in not obtaining proper authorization/being proactive; Outcome: a reasonable penalty is justified and substituted for revocation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:56:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 666 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784910</link>
      <description>Whether the customs broker breached CBLR obligations by facilitating duty-free diversion and thereby warranted license revocation and security forfeiture: tribunal held the alleged violations of regs 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 11(n) were unsustainable because misuse of Advance Authorization was discovered by post-import DRI investigation after customs clearance, and customs had no contemporaneous basis to impute knowledge to the broker; KYC requirements were met per CBIC circular. Outcome: revocation and forfeiture set aside. Whether the broker failed to act proactively under reg 11(a)/12(a): relying on K.M. Ganatra, the tribunal found some dereliction in not obtaining proper authorization/being proactive; Outcome: a reasonable penalty is justified and substituted for revocation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>