https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790617 Writ intervention remained available despite an appellate remedy where the challenge alleged breach of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant material, and jurisdictional error. Penalty against a customs broker under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act could not be sustained merely because the broker did not personally meet the exporter or physically verify the premises, since the governing regulations require documentary KYC verification rather than universal physical inspection. A quasi-judicial authority must also address binding precedent and the broker's specific defence on the scope of its duty; failure to do so vitiates the order. The penalty order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790617 Writ intervention remained available despite an appellate remedy where the challenge alleged breach of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant material, and jurisdictional error. Penalty against a customs broker under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act could not be sustained merely because the broker did not personally meet the exporter or physically verify the premises, since the governing regulations require documentary KYC verification rather than universal physical inspection. A quasi-judicial authority must also address binding precedent and the broker's specific defence on the scope of its duty; failure to do so vitiates the order. The penalty order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790617