<?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 (4) TMI 1010 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789941</link>
    <description>Penalty on a customs broker under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was not sustainable where the prohibited acts were carried out by employees on their own, without the broker&#039;s knowledge, approval or authorisation. The record showed that the employees handled new clients and filed bills of entry independently, and their statements confirmed that the managing director had not authorised the conduct. As no further active role by the broker was established in the investigation, and disciplinary action had already been taken against the employees, the basis for fastening liability on the broker was not made out. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:21:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1010 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789941</link>
      <description>Penalty on a customs broker under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was not sustainable where the prohibited acts were carried out by employees on their own, without the broker&#039;s knowledge, approval or authorisation. The record showed that the employees handled new clients and filed bills of entry independently, and their statements confirmed that the managing director had not authorised the conduct. As no further active role by the broker was established in the investigation, and disciplinary action had already been taken against the employees, the basis for fastening liability on the broker was not made out. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>