<?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>Customs broker due diligence failed on forged duty credit scrips, so penalty under section 114AA was upheld.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100202</link>
    <description>A customs broker&#039;s failure to verify the authenticity of duty credit scrips was treated as conscious facilitation where forged, duplicated and re-registered DGFT scrips were used for duty debit. The Tribunal held that the broker was bound to insist on physical copies or verify the scrip particulars from the DGFT database, since the clearance condition required production of the scrip before the proper officer for debit. On the facts, the repeated use of forged scrips and complete lack of verification justified liability under section 114AA, and the penalty was upheld. The Tribunal distinguished an earlier CESTAT ruling because intent and knowledge had been specifically addressed here.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs broker due diligence failed on forged duty credit scrips, so penalty under section 114AA was upheld.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100202</link>
      <description>A customs broker&#039;s failure to verify the authenticity of duty credit scrips was treated as conscious facilitation where forged, duplicated and re-registered DGFT scrips were used for duty debit. The Tribunal held that the broker was bound to insist on physical copies or verify the scrip particulars from the DGFT database, since the clearance condition required production of the scrip before the proper officer for debit. On the facts, the repeated use of forged scrips and complete lack of verification justified liability under section 114AA, and the penalty was upheld. The Tribunal distinguished an earlier CESTAT ruling because intent and knowledge had been specifically addressed here.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>