https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794781 A Customs Broker was not shown to be responsible for determining export value, so alleged exporter overvaluation could not be fastened on the broker. The Tribunal also held that the licensing authority had not independently examined the allegations and had instead relied on inquiry reports, making the findings under Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) and 10(n) unsustainable. Revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit were therefore not sustained. A limited penalty was, however, retained for non-participation in the inquiry proceedings under Regulation 10(q). en-us Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794781 A Customs Broker was not shown to be responsible for determining export value, so alleged exporter overvaluation could not be fastened on the broker. The Tribunal also held that the licensing authority had not independently examined the allegations and had instead relied on inquiry reports, making the findings under Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) and 10(n) unsustainable. Revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit were therefore not sustained. A limited penalty was, however, retained for non-participation in the inquiry proceedings under Regulation 10(q). Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794781