https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53313 A signed Bill of Entry was treated as sufficient authorisation under Regulation 14(a), so breach on that ground was not made out. Allegations under Regulations 14(d) and 14(l) also failed because there was no material proving the CHA knew of forged bank guarantees, and the alleged departmental violations were not identified with clarity. The only established lapse was filing through a person who was not an approved employee under Regulation 14(b), but revocation of the CHA licence was found disproportionate in the absence of fraud, collusion, or grave misconduct. The security deposit forfeiture was maintained. en-us Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Jun 2024 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53313 A signed Bill of Entry was treated as sufficient authorisation under Regulation 14(a), so breach on that ground was not made out. Allegations under Regulations 14(d) and 14(l) also failed because there was no material proving the CHA knew of forged bank guarantees, and the alleged departmental violations were not identified with clarity. The only established lapse was filing through a person who was not an approved employee under Regulation 14(b), but revocation of the CHA licence was found disproportionate in the absence of fraud, collusion, or grave misconduct. The security deposit forfeiture was maintained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53313