<?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 (6) TMI 1308 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793927</link>
    <description>A Customs Broker was not held liable for alleged overvaluation of exports or for failure to verify client documents where authority letters, IEC and KYC documents were on record and there was no reliable basis to show that the broker had to determine export value or inspect goods. The cited obligations under Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) were therefore not proved. The Tribunal also treated the prescribed timelines for inquiry and adjudication under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 as mandatory; unexplained delay in completing the proceedings rendered the revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 07:07:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908792" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1308 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793927</link>
      <description>A Customs Broker was not held liable for alleged overvaluation of exports or for failure to verify client documents where authority letters, IEC and KYC documents were on record and there was no reliable basis to show that the broker had to determine export value or inspect goods. The cited obligations under Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) were therefore not proved. The Tribunal also treated the prescribed timelines for inquiry and adjudication under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 as mandatory; unexplained delay in completing the proceedings rendered the revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>