https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786333 Inquiry found the customs broker was not directly involved in the misconduct; the acts were committed by an employee, invoking vicarious liability and the broker's duty to supervise. The tribunal upheld forfeiture of the Rs.75,000 security deposit furnished under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, but found the monetary penalty excessive and reduced it from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 as a matter of proportionality. The licence was not suspended or revoked. Appeal was therefore partially allowed with the modified penalty. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 09:36:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786333 Inquiry found the customs broker was not directly involved in the misconduct; the acts were committed by an employee, invoking vicarious liability and the broker's duty to supervise. The tribunal upheld forfeiture of the Rs.75,000 security deposit furnished under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, but found the monetary penalty excessive and reduced it from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 as a matter of proportionality. The licence was not suspended or revoked. Appeal was therefore partially allowed with the modified penalty. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786333